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