-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Not all governments in the GAC are non-democratic.  Again you
exaggerate and lump all into the same tyrannical mode.  Seems a bit
off to me.

And calling all the other SOAC processes, including those in the GNSO
process properly demcratic is another exaggeration.

I see equal footing as an important goal, not a catchy slogan.  And it
is not to rule, it is to participate fully and equally - an important
part of the multistakeholder model.

avri

On 29-Aug-14 01:52, 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] 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT//9mAAoJEOo+L8tCe36HckgIAK06eVMOngJxM98jwtgS+G2v
2hl5pX4hh256KCr8+Ghfc3CU+wAoy85RkVfdF7JJ3LUBukdKz0vdF436Oe3puyHr
2g3lwPnInY4aeFov7dhObX9NZjmeJBA0s1Z320Ehz1XfgCr959lIq5Y1mZZeAH10
SNVUGaHVea8NsFy3+Fz+aUvyjbCtx9EZq9BQR4DOGvykmjAv4S0izOQFMpeLjvyo
N/n689+QLTqTLgJpfOXb7Erl3G80Vd+H42Y4l0qPqhNw3oLotJ8i/SkkpB7yXhQf
xzadvqdMUuVPcafeTZAxfwa7zGVaaaiCetDNRc50pWMBrzmvAcCGo6hvjE6K1nM=
=E5it
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----