On Sep 8, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the reference. > > I disagree, this makes is seem quite possible to me. If a majority want > majority vote, then majority vote they will vote for and have. > 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 > I thank IRAN and the WSJ for pointing out the folly of my prior > viewpoint on giving GAC parity before the Board. If their commitment to > consensus is not ironclad in the by-laws, they shouln't be allowed to > have a greater voice. > > avri > > > On 08-Sep-14 13:57, 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]> 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]> >>> 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 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. >>>> >>> >> >>