[NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?

Fri Aug 22 14:17:22 CEST 2014

I added mine too.

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>

-- 
*Jean Guillon.tel <http://Guillon.tel> for **gTLD.club <http://gTLD.club>*
Mobile: +33.631109837
Twitter & Skype: jeanguillon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20140822/d334ce49/attachment-0002.html>