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. > > > > > > > >