Does the GAC have power to change its own bylaws, and if so, to what extent? frt rgds --c.a. On 09/08/2014 07:57 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > GAC Operating Principle 53 > > /A Member or Members may move, at a meeting, for these Operating > Principles to be open to revision. If so moved, the Chair shall call for > the movement to be seconded. If so seconded, then the Chair shall call > for a vote to support the resolution. The deciding vote may be by > ballot, by the raising or cards, or by roll call, and shall constitute a > simple majority of the Members who are present at the meeting at which > it was moved for these Operating Principles to be revised. If so > resolved in favour of a revision of these Operating Principles, then the > proposal shall sit for consultation for a period of sixty (60) days. At > the next meeting following the sixty days, the Chair shall call for a > vote for or against the proposal. The deciding vote may be taken by > ballot, by the raising or cards, or by roll call, and shall be a simple > majority of the Members who are present at the meeting at which the vote > takes place. > / > > It seems difficult for a move to majority voting to succeed with > this two-stage process and consultations in between. All the > governments and other players favoring the existing procedures would > have to really go to sleep, exert no power and influence, etc. How > might such a scenario play out? > > Best > > Bill > > On Sep 8, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I’ve been hearing that the GAC is considering changing its >> decision-making methods to a simple majority as opposed to full >> consensus for a while (since the BA meeting, I think). Is this >> actually true? Does anyone know what kind of process the GAC has in >> place to make a change like that? Would they need full consensus to >> decide that they want to operate using simple majority decision-making >> in the future? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 8, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >>> Wall Street Journal article on current state of Internet governance. >>> >>> http://online.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-crovitz-the-internet-power-vacuum-worsens-1410124265?mod=hp_opinion >>> >>> Information Age >>> <http://online.wsj.com/public/search?article-doc-type=%7BInformation+Age%7D&HEADER_TEXT=information+age> >>> The Internet Power Vacuum Worsens >>> The U.S. hasn't even abandoned its Web protection yet, and >>> authoritarians are making their move. >>> <image001.gif> >>> By L. Gordon Crovitz >>> Sept. 7, 2014 5:11 p.m. ET >>> >>> The Obama administration plan to give up U.S. protection of the open >>> Internet won't take effect for a year, but authoritarian governments >>> are already moving to grab control. President Obama is learning it's >>> as dangerous for America to create a vacuum of power in the digital >>> world as in the real one. >>> >>> In March the administration asked Icann, the Internet Corporation for >>> Assigned Names and Numbers, to suggest a plan for overseeing the >>> Internet after September 2015, when U.S. governance is scheduled to >>> end. The U.S. charged this group, which maintains the root-zone file >>> of domain names and addresses, with somehow finding mechanisms to >>> prevent other governments from undermining the permissionless, >>> free-speech Internet built under U.S. oversight. >>> >>> Instead, Icann set up a process to hand control over to governments. >>> Under the current "multistakeholder" system, an advisory group of >>> governments has only as much power as other stakeholders, such as Web >>> registries, website owners, free-speech groups and other nonprofits. >>> But in August, Icann quietly proposed changing its bylaws to >>> rubber-stamp government decisions unless two-thirds of the Icann >>> board objects. In turn, Iran has proposed that the government group >>> move to majority voting from the current consensus approach. That >>> would enable the world's majority of authoritarian governments to >>> rewire the Internet more to their liking. >>> <image002.jpg> >>> /Agence France-Presse/Getty Images/ >>> >>> What will this mean? Authoritarian governments could for the first >>> time censor the Web globally, not just in their own countries. Russia >>> could get Icann to withdraw Ukrainian sites. China could engineer the >>> world-wide removal of sites supporting freedom for Hong Kong or >>> Tibet. Iran could censor its critics in the U.S. Website operators >>> could also expect new global fees and regulations. >>> >>> Such a change "would fundamentally transform Icann away from being a >>> 'bottom-up' and 'private sector-led' organization and into a >>> governmental regulatory agency," wrote Robin Gross, a former chairman >>> of the Icann group representing nonprofits, on the CircleID blog. >>> "Why Icann would voluntarily choose to empower non-democratic >>> governments with an even greater say over global Internet policies as >>> this bylaw change would do is anyone's guess." >>> >>> The Internet Commerce Association, which represents Web businesses, >>> warns that the proposal "would transform Icann into a government-led >>> organization," which is "completely counter" to the U.S. requirement >>> that the Internet remain free of government control.** >>> >>> In a speech in July, a U.S. Commerce Departmentofficial played down >>> the danger. "The idea that governments could enhance their influence >>> within Icann by changing its rules to allow for a majority vote on >>> policy issues reflects a misunderstanding of the policymaking process >>> at Icann," said Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling. Wrong. Mr. >>> Strickling and his administration colleagues have misunderstood how >>> serious other governments are about filling the vacuum of power with >>> repression. >>> >>> Icann also upset all its major stakeholder groups by ignoring their >>> demand to make it more accountable absent U.S. oversight. >>> Stakeholders had instructed Icann to create an "independent >>> accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate >>> redress for those harmed by Icann action or inaction in contravention >>> of an agreed-upon compact with the community." Instead, Icann >>> announced that it would oversee itself. >>> >>> A dozen stakeholder groups quickly sent Icann chief Fadi Chehade a >>> letter objecting. "How does Icann intend to handle the inherent >>> conflict of interest with developing its own accountability plan?" >>> they asked. "Why didn't Icann invite proposals from the community and >>> why wasn't the community involved in the drafting of the staff plan?" >>> >>> An objection sent jointly by business and nonprofit stakeholder >>> groups to the Icann board said: "This plan, imposed on the community >>> without transparency and without the opportunity for public comment, >>> creates inconsistency, disregards proper Icann procedure, injects >>> unfairness into the process and defeats the purpose of the entire >>> accountability examination." >>> >>> Philip Corwin, a lawyer specializing in Icann issues, calls pushback >>> against the organization "unprecedented." Last week, Icann agreed to >>> put off the new rules, but only for a brief comment period. >>> >>> Much of the blame for the splintering of the multistakeholder system >>> lies with Mr. Obama's naïveté in putting Internet governance up for >>> grabs. He underestimated the importance of Washington's control in >>> maintaining an open Internet—and the desire among other governments >>> to close the Internet. And there still is no plan to keep Icann free >>> from control by governments. >>> >>> Administration officials pledged to Congress that the U.S. would keep >>> control over the Internet if the alternative was to empower other >>> governments or if there isn't full accountability for Icann. Both red >>> lines have been crossed. >>> >>> If Mr. Obama persists, Congress should block his plan with a simple >>> message: The open Internet is too valuable to surrender. >>> >> >