The move to privilege the GAC sabotages the entire multi stakeholder process. I guess, as orwell pointed out, some are more equal than others. DeeDee On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 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 > <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en> > 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] > <[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 > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/determination-amazon-22aug14-en.pdf> 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. > > > -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org