<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Actually it doesn't say "all govts in GAC are non-democratic" as you allege. It says that some are and some aren't. By empowering the GAC as a whole, we would *also* be empowering those govts who are not democratic in the power structures at ICANN simply by virtue of their GAC membership. My own conscious cannot promote a re-formulation of the ICANN board that accepts as legitimate govts who arrest women drivers or imprison/execute citizens simply for speaking against the government. Because the authoritarian govts are a subset of GAC, they get empowered when GAC as a whole gets empowered. Our GNSO representatives on the board had to stand for an election in a bottom-up process. What bottom-up process will justify the inclusion of the Chinese GAC member on the board?</div><div><br></div><div>On the issue of the power of a 2/3 super-majority, this is what the National conference of State Legislatures had to say about what a 2/3 vote actually means:</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; font-family: sans-serif; "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; font-family: sans-serif; ">The US </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; font-family: sans-serif; "><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason%27s_Manual_of_Legislative_Procedure" title="Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; ">Mason's Manual</a></i></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; font-family: sans-serif; "> notes, "A deliberative body cannot by its own act or rule require a two-thirds vote to take any action where the constitution or controlling authority requires only a majority vote. To require a two-thirds vote, for example, to take any action would be to give to any number more than one-third of the members the power to defeat the action and amount to a delegation of the powers of the body to a minority."</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; font-family: sans-serif; "><sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; "><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority#cite_note-1" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(6, 69, 173); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; white-space: nowrap; "><span style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(6, 69, 173); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; white-space: nowrap; ">[</span><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#0645ad"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; white-space: nowrap; ">1</span></font><span style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(6, 69, 173); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; white-space: nowrap; ">]</span></a></sup></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; font-family: sans-serif; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; "> -- From <span class="reference-text">National Conference of State Legislatures (2000). <i>Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure</i>, 2000 ed., p. 353</span></span></span></div></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; font-family: sans-serif; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; "><span class="reference-text"><br></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; font-family: sans-serif; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; "><span class="reference-text">My two cents anyway,</span></span></span></div><div>Robin</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Aug 28, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><fieldset style="padding-top:10px; border:0px; border: 3px solid #CCC; padding-left: 20px;"><legend style="font-weight:bold">Signed PGP part</legend><div style="padding-left:3px;">Hi,<br><br>Not all governments in the GAC are non-democratic.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> Again you<br>exaggerate and lump all into the same tyrannical mode.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> Seems a bit<br>off to me.<br><br>And calling all the other SOAC processes, including those in the GNSO<br>process properly demcratic is another exaggeration.<br><br>I see equal footing as an important goal, not a catchy slogan.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> And it<br>is not to rule, it is to participate fully and equally - an important<br>part of the multistakeholder model.<br><br>avri<br><br>On 29-Aug-14 01:52, Robin Gross wrote:<br>> I see no reason why authoritarian non-democratic governments<br>> deserve "equal footing" with legitimate democratic bottom-up<br>> processes.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> Many in GAC are exactly this: non-democratic and<br>> authoritarian governments where the people are not allowed to<br>> govern themselves through free and fair elections.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> These govt's<br>> have no legitimate right to claim they deserve "equal footing" to<br>> rule over anyone, let alone the DNS.<br>> <br>> <br>> "Equal footing" might be a catchy slogan that sounds nice on its <br>> surface to those who care about equality.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> But giving tyrannical <br>> govts "equal footing" to rule the root is a bad idea when you<br>> think it through.<br>> <br>> Robin<br>> <br>> <br>> On Aug 28, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>> <br>>> Signed PGP part Hi,<br>>> <br>>> I think this is way overstated.<br>>> <br>>> In no way does raising the bar from majority to supermajority<br>>> give them a veto.<br>>> <br>>> I can accept being against it, even though I am not, but i see no<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> reason to call it something it is not.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> It puts them on a par<br>>> with the GNSO.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> You may not want this, but it is not a veto.<br>>> <br>>> I personally don't see the big deal, but then again I believe in<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> parity and equal footing.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> And since it is something I demand<br>>> for us, I have trouble arguing against it for others.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> I can't<br>>> get into the notion that equal treatment is good for us but not<br>>> for others, especially in a multistakeholder environment.<br>>> <br>>> Let me repeat, supermajority is _not_ a veto.<br>>> <br>>> And furthermore, it is not a veto by non democratic countries <br>>> since, believe it or not some of the democratic countries in the <br>>> GAC would have to participate in coming to consensus on the <br>>> advice.<br>>> <br>>> Argue against it if you must, but don't blow it out of all <br>>> proportion. If nothing else if makes your comment easier to put <br>>> aside.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> So even if I agreed with you I would argue against<br>>> calling it something it is not for a tactical reason.<br>>> <br>>> avri<br>>> <br>>> <br>>> On 28-Aug-14 07:10, Robin Gross wrote:<br>>>> Hi all,<br>>>> <br>>>> Below are my comments on the extreme proposal to amend ICANN's<br>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> bylaws to impose GAC "advice" on the Internet unless 2/3 of<br>>>> the non-conflicted members of ICANN's board (would there ever<br>>>> be such a number given the many board conflicts?) are able to<br>>>> oppose the GAC "advice" (why are we still calling it<br>>>> "advice"?)<br>>>> <br>>>> I've also made a blog post to encourage others to post<br>>>> comments to the public forum here: <a href="http://bit.ly/1rBtbKl">http://bit.ly/1rBtbKl</a><br>>>> <br>>>> I hope you all will consider weighing-in and standing-up for <br>>>> freedom on the Internet by encouraging the board to reject this<br>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> proposal that give non-democratic governments power over the <br>>>> Internet via ICANN's board.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> It is a very important issue - <br>>>> perhaps one of the most important that ICANN has faced since<br>>>> its inception, so it is a major change and worth paying<br>>>> attention to.<br>>>> <br>>>> Thank you, Robin<br>>>> <br>>>> PS:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> You can submit comments by sending an email to <br>>>> <a href="mailto:comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14@icann.org">comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14@icann.org</a> Comment <br>>>> Deadline: 14 Sept. 2014 Reply Deadline: 6 Oct. 2014<br>>>> <br>>>> Begin forwarded message:<br>>>> <br>>>>> From: Robin Gross <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>> Subject: Do Not<br>>>>> Empower Non-Democratic Governments' Control Over the Internet<br>>>>> with this Draconian "GAC Veto" on ICANN Board Decisions Date:<br>>>>> August 27, 2014 3:50:13 PM PDT To: <br>>>>> <a href="mailto:comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14@icann.org">comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14@icann.org</a> Bcc: Robin<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> Gross <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>><br>>>>> <br>>>>> Dear ICANN,<br>>>>> <br>>>>> This draconian proposal to change ICANN's bylaws would <br>>>>> fundamentally transform ICANN away from being a "bottom-up"<br>>>>> and "private-sector-led" organization and into a governmental<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> regulatory agency by changing the GAC's role from "advisory"<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> into "primary decision maker" by essentially creating a <br>>>>> "governmental veto" on all key organizational decisions.<br>>>>> This would mark a truly significant change in the overall<br>>>>> power structure at ICANN that would dramatically empower<br>>>>> national governments (some democratic, some authoritarian)<br>>>>> over the management of critical Internet resources at the<br>>>>> expense of those who participate in the bottom-up policy<br>>>>> development process.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> This extreme proposal undermines any hope of a bottom-up <br>>>>> process for policy development at ICANN and kills the<br>>>>> incentive for volunteers to participate in ICANN since<br>>>>> governments will be empowered to veto the bottom-up policy<br>>>>> that was developed by years of hard work and painful<br>>>>> compromises on the part of all stakeholders.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> Ironically, it is often ICANN's own board and staff who do<br>>>>> the most to undermine the "multi-stakeholder model for<br>>>>> Internet governance", and this proposal, if passed, would be<br>>>>> a prime illustration of that fact.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> By making additional<br>>>>> concessions to GAC that give governments more power at ICANN,<br>>>>> the board would be relinquishing its responsibility to<br>>>>> provide oversight of the organization's operations.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> And<br>>>>> since so many non-GAC board members are "conflicted" on<br>>>>> issues that are of greatest significance to the org's work,<br>>>>> in reality it will take far more than 2/3 of the board to<br>>>>> resist the mandatory imposition of GAC "advice" by ICANN.<br>>>>> There is nothing to prevent GAC from becoming a voting body<br>>>>> that imposes its majority will on the entire Internet via the<br>>>>> ICANN board; and this bylaws change would certainly<br>>>>> incentivize such a reaction from GAC.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> Since ICANN claimed in<br>>>>> its recent determination of the BGC Reconsideration Request<br>>>>> 14-35 (which refused to release any information about GAC<br>>>>> policy deliberations) that GAC is not a part of ICANN, it is<br>>>>> inexplicable why ICANN would choose to give what it claimed<br>>>>> in its determination is NOT a part of ICANN the predominate<br>>>>> decision making position on the ICANN Board of Directors.<br>>>>> That is quite a quiet transfer of power and resources "away<br>>>>> from ICANN" to a non-accountable, non-transparent,<br>>>>> non-bottom-up, non-private-sector-led organization over the<br>>>>> management of critical Internet resources.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> It should not be forgotten that many of the governments who <br>>>>> participate within the GAC are not democratically elected; <br>>>>> meaning citizens in those countries do not have free and fair<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> elections in which people govern themselves; meaning those <br>>>>> governments are not bottom-up; meaning those non-democratic <br>>>>> governments are illegitimate in their authority and have no <br>>>>> right to demand a decision making role over anyone, let<br>>>>> alone the entire world via the ICANN board.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> Why ICANN would voluntarily choose to empower non-democratic<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> governments with an even greater say over global Internet <br>>>>> policies as this bylaws change would do is anyone's guess.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> One of the most precious aspects of the Internet is the <br>>>>> ability of activists and the disenfranchised to communicate <br>>>>> with the world outside from an authoritarian government'' <br>>>>> control by using the Internet.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> This bylaws proposal, if <br>>>>> passed, will ultimately stifle use of the Internet for both <br>>>>> disenfranchised people and those who live in democracies but <br>>>>> will still be governed by the GAC via this ICANN Board<br>>>>> "veto". Unfortunately many governments view the Internet<br>>>>> either as a threat to their control of their citizens, or as<br>>>>> a powerful tool that enables their control of their citizens<br>>>>> - this is true in both democracies and non-democracies, and<br>>>>> that stifling view will be recklessly empowered by the<br>>>>> adoption of this bylaws change.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> This is a truly dangerous proposal that would send the<br>>>>> Internet back towards the dark ages when the Crown controlled<br>>>>> access to printing presses and what information was allowed<br>>>>> to spread. For the ICANN Board to empower non-democratic<br>>>>> governments by approving this bylaws change would be among<br>>>>> the worst damage done to the health and growth of the free<br>>>>> and open Internet since it was created.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> The ICANN Board<br>>>>> should recognize its obligation to promote democracy and<br>>>>> protect everyone's use of the Internet, but especially the<br>>>>> disenfranchised by not empowering authoritarian governments'<br>>>>> control of the Internet with the adoption of this draconian<br>>>>> bylaws change.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> Thank you, Robin Gross<br>>>>> <br>>>>> Note:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> I am a member of the Executive Committee of ICANN's <br>>>>> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), but submit this <br>>>>> comment solely in my personal capacity.<br>>>> <br>>>> <br>>> <br>>> <br>> <br>> </div></fieldset><br><br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>