[CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion

[Rubens Kuhl]

> 
> Also, importantly, Fadi told the U.S. Congress in February 2015 that any move to require a 2/3 Board majority to reject GAC advice was “off the table.”  Senator Fischer asked Fadi directly about a proposal to require a 2/3 vote to reject GAC advice. Fadi responded, “That would be incongruent with the stated goals. The board has looked at that matter and has pushed it back so it’s off the table.” Senator Fischer followed up and said, “It’s off the table,” and Fadi again said: “It’s off the table.” This started on the video at the 1:12:50 mark (on the counter on the right) http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/2/preserving-the-multistakeholder-model-of-internet-governance <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/2/preserving-the-multistakeholder-model-of-internet-governance>  I expect any change on this point might raise some serious and difficult questions.

The 2/3 proposal has also been subject to ICANN public comments:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en>

The comments didn't favor the idea, and the board decided not to follow it, and informed the GAC:
http://domainincite.com/18052-icann-ditches-plan-to-give-governments-more-power <http://domainincite.com/18052-icann-ditches-plan-to-give-governments-more-power>

So besides US political establishment, it seems the community didn't like it either. I reckon this time is possibly the moment referred by the Board chair to revisit the idea in a larger context, but it seems the community reaction hasn't changed. 


Rubens




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151109/dc0a25ca/attachment.html>