On Sep 8, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the reference.
> 
> I disagree, this makes is seem quite possible to me.  If a majority want
> majority vote, then majority vote they will vote for and  have.
> 


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



> I thank IRAN and the WSJ for pointing out the folly of my prior
> viewpoint on giving GAC parity before the Board.  If their commitment to
> consensus is not ironclad in the by-laws, they shouln't be allowed to
> have a greater voice.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 08-Sep-14 13:57, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> GAC Operating Principle 53
>> 
>> A Member or Members may move, at a meeting, for these Operating
>> Principles to be open to revision. If so moved, the Chair shall call
>> for the movement to be seconded. If so seconded, then the Chair shall
>> call for a vote to support the resolution. The deciding vote may be
>> by ballot, by the raising or cards, or by roll call, and shall
>> constitute a simple majority of the Members who are present at the
>> meeting at which it was moved for these Operating Principles to be
>> revised. If so resolved in favour of a revision of these Operating
>> Principles, then the proposal shall sit for consultation for a period
>> of sixty (60) days. At the next meeting following the sixty days, the
>> Chair shall call for a vote for or against the proposal. The deciding
>> vote may be taken by ballot, by the raising or cards, or by roll
>> call, and shall be a simple majority of the Members who are present
>> at the meeting at which the vote takes place.
>> 
>> It seems difficult for a move to majority voting to succeed with this
>> two-stage process and consultations in between.  All the governments
>> and other players favoring the existing procedures would have to
>> really go to sleep, exert no power and influence, etc.  How might
>> such a scenario play out?
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> On Sep 8, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>