[NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?

Wed Aug 20 18:03:37 CEST 2014

Amr
This is a great comment, that you should send in to the comment site in the proposal. 
It has street cred because you are involved in the Council and WGs. 
--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org [mailto:ncuc-discuss-
> bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:36 AM
> To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for posting the comment, Milton. Speaking for myself, I am in complete
> agreement with it.
> 
> GNSO Working Groups go through a pretty exhaustive process to come up with
> policy recommendations, send them to the GNSO Council to be approved and
> forwarded to the ICANN board. GAC members are more than welcome to
> participate on equal footing with other stakeholders in these WGs, they are
> more than welcome to provide feedback at multiple stages during the public
> comment periods of this process including the scoping of the policies being
> discussed (twice when staff publish issue reports and when a PDP charter
> drafting team comes up with a charter), provide input during the WG
> deliberations, and feedback on recommendations that have gained consensus by
> the WG members.
> 
> Undermining the GNSO's PDP by empowering a parallel policy development
> mechanism is a hazard to how gTLD policy is developed at ICANN. It's difficult
> enough to attract volunteers to participate in WGs. Increasing GAC influence on
> the outcome of this process will only demoralise participants further. This
> suggested amendment to the by-laws is also very conflicted with the efforts
> underway between the GNSO and the GAC to encourage early engagement in
> the GNSO process (as opposed to only resorting to GAC Advice).
> 
> I personally don't see the point in folks participating in WGs that sometimes take
> more than a year to reach consensus if this work will have to contend with GAC
> Advice when all is said and done.
> 
> I do, however, agree with Avri; that Geist exaggerates the danger. Still..., there is
> a danger.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Aug 19, 2014, at 8:20 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss