[NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?

Tue Aug 19 23:15:31 CEST 2014

Slight correction: the proposed change in Bylaws raises to 2/3 the number of 
Board members required to vote to disregard GAC advice for said advice to be 
disregarded. In my earlier post, I mistakenly wrote that the proposed 
threshold was 3/4. Apologies for the typo. The argument remains unchanged.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Edward Morris" <emorris at milk.toast.net>
To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:34:27 -0400
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?

Hi,

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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;

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.

Ed

* Love the reference to Animal Farm, although to me ICANN increasingly 
resembles Animal House, 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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
To: "'Kathy Kleiman'" <kathy at kathykleiman.com>, 
"ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org" <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:20:23 +0000
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?

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
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20140819/bbc85176/attachment-0002.html>