I agree.

IF the Board has to muster a super-majority to overrdie GAC advice AND the GAC abandons consensus (the former quite likely, the latter is any one's guess), then that is a totally different world than the staus quo, one where governmental power in ICANN is unchecked.

rgds,

McTim


On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi,

I agree with this analysis.

avri


On 08-Sep-14 18:22, 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/
>
>