[NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?

Fri Aug 22 13:57:08 CEST 2014

Hi,

I submitted my input, and it is now posted here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/

Thanks.

Amr

On Aug 20, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

> 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