Actually it doesn't say "all govts in GAC are non-democratic" as you allege. It says that some are and some aren't. By empowering the GAC as a whole, we would *also* be empowering those govts who are not democratic in the power structures at ICANN simply by virtue of their GAC membership. My own conscious cannot promote a re-formulation of the ICANN board that accepts as legitimate govts who arrest women drivers or imprison/execute citizens simply for speaking against the government. Because the authoritarian govts are a subset of GAC, they get empowered when GAC as a whole gets empowered. Our GNSO representatives on the board had to stand for an election in a bottom-up process. What bottom-up process will justify the inclusion of the Chinese GAC member on the board? On the issue of the power of a 2/3 super-majority, this is what the National conference of State Legislatures had to say about what a 2/3 vote actually means: The US Mason's Manual notes, "A deliberative body cannot by its own act or rule require a two-thirds vote to take any action where the constitution or controlling authority requires only a majority vote. To require a two-thirds vote, for example, to take any action would be to give to any number more than one-third of the members the power to defeat the action and amount to a delegation of the powers of the body to a minority."[1] -- From National Conference of State Legislatures (2000). Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, 2000 ed., p. 353 My two cents anyway, Robin On Aug 28, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Signed PGP part > 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. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > >