Wall Street Journal on ICANN

[Wisdom Donkor]

Just wondering what the motivation is that is making the sudden change of
direction.

WISDOM DONKOR
Sosftware / Network Engineer
Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh


On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I don't know if they are so much thinking of changing, as one member has
> suggested it.  But it becomes a possibility.
>
> While I have been in a minority position as supportive of giving a
> consensus based GAC*  parity in considerations, if the possibility of
> majority vote decisions in the GAC is real, I join the 'non way in hell'
> side of this discussion.
>
>  avri
>
> * (i support that for all consensus based AC advice - i really do
> believe in SOAC parity when standing before the decision makers, i.e.
> the Board)
>
> On 08-Sep-14 13:40, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I’ve been hearing that the GAC is considering changing its
> > decision-making methods to a simple majority as opposed to full
> > consensus for a while (since the BA meeting, I think). Is this
> > actually true? Does anyone know what kind of process the GAC has in
> > place to make a change like that? Would they need full consensus to
> > decide that they want to operate using simple majority
> > decision-making in the future?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> > On Sep 8, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> wrote:
> >
> >> Wall Street Journal article on current state of Internet
> >> governance.
> >>
> >>
> http://online.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-crovitz-the-internet-power-vacuum-worsens-1410124265?mod=hp_opinion
> >>
> >>  Information Age The Internet Power Vacuum Worsens The U.S. hasn't
> >> even abandoned its Web protection yet, and authoritarians are
> >> making their move. <image001.gif> By L. Gordon Crovitz Sept. 7,
> >> 2014 5:11 p.m. ET
> >>
> >> The Obama administration plan to give up U.S. protection of the
> >> open Internet won't take effect for a year, but authoritarian
> >> governments are already moving to grab control. President Obama is
> >> learning it's as dangerous for America to create a vacuum of power
> >> in the digital world as in the real one.
> >>
> >> In March the administration asked Icann, the Internet Corporation
> >> for Assigned Names and Numbers, to suggest a plan for overseeing
> >> the Internet after September 2015, when U.S. governance is
> >> scheduled to end. The U.S. charged this group, which maintains the
> >> root-zone file of domain names and addresses, with somehow finding
> >> mechanisms to prevent other governments from undermining the
> >> permissionless, free-speech Internet built under U.S. oversight.
> >>
> >> Instead, Icann set up a process to hand control over to
> >> governments. Under the current "multistakeholder" system, an
> >> advisory group of governments has only as much power as other
> >> stakeholders, such as Web registries, website owners, free-speech
> >> groups and other nonprofits. But in August, Icann quietly proposed
> >> changing its bylaws to rubber-stamp government decisions unless
> >> two-thirds of the Icann board objects. In turn, Iran has proposed
> >> that the government group move to majority voting from the current
> >> consensus approach. That would enable the world's majority of
> >> authoritarian governments to rewire the Internet more to their
> >> liking. <image002.jpg> Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
> >>
> >> What will this mean? Authoritarian governments could for the first
> >> time censor the Web globally, not just in their own countries.
> >> Russia could get Icann to withdraw Ukrainian sites. China could
> >> engineer the world-wide removal of sites supporting freedom for
> >> Hong Kong or Tibet. Iran could censor its critics in the U.S.
> >> Website operators could also expect new global fees and
> >> regulations.
> >>
> >> Such a change "would fundamentally transform Icann away from being
> >> a 'bottom-up' and 'private sector-led' organization and into a
> >> governmental regulatory agency," wrote Robin Gross, a former
> >> chairman of the Icann group representing nonprofits, on the
> >> CircleID blog. "Why Icann would voluntarily choose to empower
> >> non-democratic governments with an even greater say over global
> >> Internet policies as this bylaw change would do is anyone's
> >> guess."
> >>
> >> The Internet Commerce Association, which represents Web businesses,
> >> warns that the proposal "would transform Icann into a
> >> government-led organization," which is "completely counter" to the
> >> U.S. requirement that the Internet remain free of government
> >> control.
> >>
> >> In a speech in July, a U.S. Commerce Departmentofficial played down
> >> the danger. "The idea that governments could enhance their
> >> influence within Icann by changing its rules to allow for a
> >> majority vote on policy issues reflects a misunderstanding of the
> >> policymaking process at Icann," said Assistant Secretary Lawrence
> >> Strickling. Wrong. Mr. Strickling and his administration colleagues
> >> have misunderstood how serious other governments are about filling
> >> the vacuum of power with repression.
> >>
> >> Icann also upset all its major stakeholder groups by ignoring their
> >> demand to make it more accountable absent U.S. oversight.
> >> Stakeholders had instructed Icann to create an "independent
> >> accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and
> >> adequate redress for those harmed by Icann action or inaction in
> >> contravention of an agreed-upon compact with the community."
> >> Instead, Icann announced that it would oversee itself.
> >>
> >> A dozen stakeholder groups quickly sent Icann chief Fadi Chehade a
> >> letter objecting. "How does Icann intend to handle the inherent
> >> conflict of interest with developing its own accountability plan?"
> >> they asked. "Why didn't Icann invite proposals from the community
> >> and why wasn't the community involved in the drafting of the staff
> >> plan?"
> >>
> >> An objection sent jointly by business and nonprofit stakeholder
> >> groups to the Icann board said: "This plan, imposed on the
> >> community without transparency and without the opportunity for
> >> public comment, creates inconsistency, disregards proper Icann
> >> procedure, injects unfairness into the process and defeats the
> >> purpose of the entire accountability examination."
> >>
> >> Philip Corwin, a lawyer specializing in Icann issues, calls
> >> pushback against the organization "unprecedented." Last week, Icann
> >> agreed to put off the new rules, but only for a brief comment
> >> period.
> >>
> >> Much of the blame for the splintering of the multistakeholder
> >> system lies with Mr. Obama's naïveté in putting Internet governance
> >> up for grabs. He underestimated the importance of Washington's
> >> control in maintaining an open Internet—and the desire among other
> >> governments to close the Internet. And there still is no plan to
> >> keep Icann free from control by governments.
> >>
> >> Administration officials pledged to Congress that the U.S. would
> >> keep control over the Internet if the alternative was to empower
> >> other governments or if there isn't full accountability for Icann.
> >> Both red lines have been crossed.
> >>
> >> If Mr. Obama persists, Congress should block his plan with a simple
> >> message: The open Internet is too valuable to surrender.
> >>
> >
> >
> H
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140908/d87dbd22/attachment.htm>