I am definitely with Avri on this...


 *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ...  *(CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
[image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
   <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>



On 29 August 2014 08:52, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 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.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>