[NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?

[Milton L Mueller]

You're right, Kathy. 
Please NCSG members, don't be swayed by Avri's cynical mood. 

Hree is the public comment I wrote for this:

all stakeholders are equal...but some stakeholders are more equal than others

It's impossible not to think of Orwell's famous phrase from Animal Farm when reading this proposal.

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. 

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. 

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.

Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor 
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org [mailto:ncuc-discuss-
> bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:24 AM
> To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?
> 
> Hi All,
> I think it may make GAC much more powerful -- essentially a veto over the
> GNSO process (and the other supporting organizations as well).
> Michael Geist's article on this is good --
> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/government-control-internet-
> governance-icann-proposes-giving-gac-increased-power-board-decisions/
> 
> I think we should think hard about opposing...
> Best,
> Kathy
> 
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > What it essentially does is put GAC on an equal footing with GNSO,
> > ccNSO and maybe ASO.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 18-Aug-14 22:50, William Drake wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Well this is interesting.  ICANN's proposing a bylaws change that
> >> would would require 2/3 of the voting members of the Board to vote to
> >> act inconsistently with a piece of GAC advice.  Currently, the Bylaws
> >> require a simple majority of the Board.
> >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-
> 2014-08
> >> -15-en
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > The public comment forum is here
> >> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-
> 15aug14
> >> /
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Might be good for people to weigh in, individually and/or collectively.
> >> Michael Geist offers an initial take on this,
> >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/08/government-control-internet-
> govern
> >> ance-icann-proposes-giving-gac-increased-power-board-decisions/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Bill _______________________________________________ Ncuc-
> discuss
> >> mailing list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >>
> >>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
> >
> >
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT8t7yAAoJEOo+L8tCe36HsQAIAKUTJpkPSbE+Kx+GEZ8Gw
> DW1
> > gBLChEgjBpK8ZKkyItm/DrBna1Ojfr/eRjjoxhHc2DThcRPBZ57drlADCEvSFfYK
> >
> QSe9Gw5BQhbX5mEMJJ9vDq+OuqaSjx2w5PO1rBUjjq4buu1dR49Cz0on7UUi
> 5e2O
> >
> 71yZKixPxNqvddKgVSUtxKl6sqYwmnx0nVNOeW+CLtuL8UdCnmAoxRccPibP
> NQEX
> >
> WBs4FY4DzW4JdjW3Znuy6Uj3zLoZegiZDHBI42mnOEcBC0ZiHU6gD351UfUaAp
> 4c
> >
> FiTdyX2dCAqQdU/odiH0HjWdN+AU4IueJtxliEPoSsYwxy891JoyTsx0DTv6yW4
> =
> > =vF1F
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss