-----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-----