<html><body>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">
<div>Hi,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Given the group think mentality that pervades much of the current board
(apologies to Wolfgang) I can understand Avri’s perspective that it
might not make much of a difference whether the threshold is 50% or 75% to
enable the Board to disregard GAC advice. The thing is, we’re talking
about Bylaws here and Bylaws are designed to outlast any particular
Board.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let’s look at history. Perhaps the most famous occasion when the
Board disregarded GAC advice was the second vote on .XXX. The final tally
(9-3-4) would have met the 75% threshold, but barely. It would have been
quite tempting for one of the Board members who recused themselves that day
not to do so had their vote actually meant passage or defeat. A ¾
threshold changes the dynamics of a situation far beyond the vote
itself.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Although, as Avri points out, we certainly are a minority on the GNSO
let us not forget that many of the issues that come before the Board are
beyond the competence of the GNSO, yet affect our members. Do we really want
to further empower the GAC on all issues that may come before the Board for
a decision? I don’t think so.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This attempt at a power grab also demonstrates a tone deafness that is
quite startling. The one constant from the American polity is that ICANN
needs to transition to a situation that respects the multi-stakeholder
design and does not further empower governments. As Milton points out in his
eloquent post* that’s exactly what this does. Do we want to give
ammunition to the naysayers in Congress who argue simplistically that the
President wants to “give away” the Internet to “foreign
governments”? Why jeopardize the transition any more than we have
to?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I agree with Kathy and Milton and others who suggest we need to oppose
this. I’d also like to ask the PC, at least PC members on this NCUC
list, to consider authorizing a DIDP on this. I’m happy to do
the first draft if there is a desire to go forward. Two reasons to do
so:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1. It would be nice to know the dynamics that have led to this
proposal. Is there resistance on the Board? That would be useful to know as
we plan our opposition;</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2. We may even get some additional information. Most of the matter
protected by the DCND doesn’t apply in this case. If staff and Board
refuse to give us any information on matters concerning a change in the
Bylaws, the most serious of all issues, it seriously strengthens our case
that current transparency rules should in no way be confused with the FOIA
standards suggested in the Thune / Rubio letter. They need to be
strengthened.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed</div>
<div> </div>
<div>* Love the reference to <em>Animal Farm</em>, although to me ICANN
increasingly resembles <em>Animal House</em>, with Steve Crocker in the role
of Dean Wormer. As we continue to fight, we can all take solace in the way
that movie turned out.</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">-----Original
Message-----<br />
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu><br />
To: "'Kathy Kleiman'" <kathy@kathykleiman.com>,
"ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org"
<ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org><br />
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:20:23 +0000<br />
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?<br />
<div style="font-family: monospace, courier new, courier"><br />
You're right, Kathy.<br />
Please NCSG members, don't be swayed by Avri's cynical mood.<br />
<br />
Hree is the public comment I wrote for this:<br />
<br />
all stakeholders are equal...but some stakeholders are more equal than
others<br />
<br />
It's impossible not to think of Orwell's famous phrase from Animal
Farm when reading this proposal.<br />
<br />
This bylaw change gives GAC precisely the wrong kinds of incentives. The
ATRT recommendations (and virtually everyone else familiar with ICANN's
process and aware of the dysfunctional relationship between GAC's
shadow-policy making process and the real bottom up process) have been
urging GAC to get more involved with and integrated into the policy
development process. But this resolution pushes them in the opposite
direction. It tells GAC that they don't have to consult or integrate
their policy ideas with any other stakeholder groups. Their pronouncements
will be given a special status regardless of how little make an effort to
listen to and reach agreement with other groups. As this happens, other
stakeholders will learn that the real place to influence policy is to lobby
the GAC. The GNSO's policy development process in particular will
atrophy.<br />
<br />
By proposing this ill-advised change, ICANN is corroding multistakeholder
governance at its very foundations. If this passes, ICANN can stop
presenting itself as an alternative to Internet governance via governmental
and inter-governmental processes. It will have privileged governments to
such a degree that virtually any arbitrary, untimely, ill-considered
pronouncement that makes its way through the GAC will take on the status of
a global rule for the Internet's DNS unless 2/3 of ICANN's generally
spineless board can be mobilized to stop it.<br />
<br />
What we are seeing here is, as some of us predicted, the long-term
transformation of GAC into an intergovernmental organization with control
over the internet. The problem is that the GAC is _worse_ than ITU because
it has none of the procedural safeguards and limitations on its authority
(such as the right of a state not to ratify a treaty) that governments
have.<br />
<br />
Milton L Mueller<br />
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor<br />
Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br />
<a href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/" target="_blank">
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
> -----Original Message-----<br />
> From: <a href="mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces%40lists.ncuc.org">
ncuc-discuss-bounces@lists.ncuc.org</a> [mailto:ncuc-discuss-<br />
> <a href="mailto:bounces%40lists.ncuc.org">bounces@lists.ncuc.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman<br />
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:24 AM<br />
> To: <a href="mailto:ncuc-discuss%40lists.ncuc.org">
ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br />
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?<br />
><br />
> Hi All,<br />
> I think it may make GAC much more powerful -- essentially a veto over
the<br />
> GNSO process (and the other supporting organizations as well).<br />
> Michael Geist's article on this is good --<br />
> <a
href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/government-control-internet-"
target="_blank">
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/government-control-internet-</a><br />
>
governance-icann-proposes-giving-gac-increased-power-board-decisions/<br />
><br />
> I think we should think hard about opposing...<br />
> Best,<br />
> Kathy<br />
><br />
><br />
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br />
> ><br />
> > Hi,<br />
> ><br />
> > What it essentially does is put GAC on an equal footing with
GNSO,<br />
> > ccNSO and maybe ASO.<br />
> ><br />
> > avri<br />
> ><br />
> ><br />
> > On 18-Aug-14 22:50, William Drake wrote:<br />
> >> Hi<br />
> >><br />
> >> Well this is interesting. ICANN's proposing a bylaws
change that<br />
> >> would would require 2/3 of the voting members of the Board to
vote to<br />
> >> act inconsistently with a piece of GAC advice.
Currently, the Bylaws<br />
> >> require a simple majority of the Board.<br />
> >> <a
href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-"
target="_blank">
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-</a><br />
> 2014-08<br />
> >> -15-en<br />
> >><br />
> >><br />
> >><br />
> > The public comment forum is here<br />
> >> <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-"
target="_blank">
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-</a><br />
> 15aug14<br />
> >> /<br />
> >><br />
> >><br />
> >><br />
> > Might be good for people to weigh in, individually and/or
collectively.<br />
> >> Michael Geist offers an initial take on this,<br />
> >> <a
href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/government-control-internet-"
target="_blank">
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/government-control-internet-</a><br />
> govern<br />
> >>
ance-icann-proposes-giving-gac-increased-power-board-decisions/<br />
> >><br />
> >><br />
> >><br />
> > Bill _______________________________________________ Ncuc-<br />
> discuss<br />
> >> mailing list <a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss%40lists.ncuc.org">
Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br />
> >> <a
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
target="_blank">
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br />
> >><br />
> >><br />
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br />
> > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)<br />
> ><br />
> ><br />
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT8t7yAAoJEOo+L8tCe36HsQAIAKUTJpkPSbE+Kx+GEZ8Gw<br />
> DW1<br />
> >
gBLChEgjBpK8ZKkyItm/DrBna1Ojfr/eRjjoxhHc2DThcRPBZ57drlADCEvSFfYK<br />
> ><br />
> QSe9Gw5BQhbX5mEMJJ9vDq+OuqaSjx2w5PO1rBUjjq4buu1dR49Cz0on7UUi<br />
> 5e2O<br />
> ><br />
> 71yZKixPxNqvddKgVSUtxKl6sqYwmnx0nVNOeW+CLtuL8UdCnmAoxRccPibP<br />
> NQEX<br />
> ><br />
> WBs4FY4DzW4JdjW3Znuy6Uj3zLoZegiZDHBI42mnOEcBC0ZiHU6gD351UfUaAp<br />
> 4c<br />
> ><br />
> FiTdyX2dCAqQdU/odiH0HjWdN+AU4IueJtxliEPoSsYwxy891JoyTsx0DTv6yW4<br />
> =<br />
> > =vF1F<br />
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br />
> > _______________________________________________<br />
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br />
> > <a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss%40lists.ncuc.org">
Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br />
> > <a
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
target="_blank">
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br />
><br />
> _______________________________________________<br />
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br />
> <a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss%40lists.ncuc.org">
Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br />
> <a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
target="_blank">
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br />
_______________________________________________<br />
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br />
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss%40lists.ncuc.org">
Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br />
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
target="_blank">
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body></html>