Are there not two issues at play here? The one is how CAG reaches a decision to forward advice to the Board, and the other is the terms under which the Board decides to accept or reject GAC advice. The core questions should be: What are the shortcomings of the status quo? What gets improved with the proposed changes? What are the downside risks from the proposed changes?

Thus far the discussion seems to be focused on whether the downside risks are large or small. What are the gains over the status quo that would make it worth supporting changes that increase the downside risks, be they small or large?

Sam L.

On 08/09/2014 11:22 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

-----Original Message----- I can't see why govt would do this. Think about the current vin/wine impasse, or discussions GAC's had about any number of new TLDs. Simple majority or even super would reduce their individual influence. No? Adam

It drepends on the political situation. A motivated, disciplined faction of governments could rationally calculate that a) we have a majority of votes b) we are likely to retain a majority for some time c) we share common interests (or enemies) across a number of IG issues ...and conclude, let's make this thing run on majority of govts, and we will have control of it. This kind of thing does happen in the UNGA, does it not? I am not saying this is imminent in the GAC/IG world, but it does not seem entirely implausible. Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/

-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: [log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852