[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

[Mueller, Milton L]

> -----Original Message-----
> What puzzles me (not intending to accuse anybody) is that is seems
> that many are saying that by agreeing to this, we would be ceding to
> governments, which we should not do. And one of the arguments they
> use, is that the US government would never agree to this and the
> transition would fail.

Roelof

First of all, those of us seeking to limit GAC's role in the post-transition ICANN to its current role have _never_ rested our case on an appeal to the US government. We have made substantive arguments about ICANN's status as a private sector-based multistakeholder institution where policy is set by Internet users and suppliers, and we have contended that putting too much power in GAC's hands undermines that governance model. If you want an example, see this paper: http://www.ipjustice.org/internet-governance/ip-justice-journal-the-iana-transition-and-the-role-of-governments-in-internet-governance-by-milton-mueller/  

The other thing you overlook is that the concerns about U.S. govt not agreeing rest upon a well-known and pre-established criterion for the transition. It is a given that the proposal's accountability solutions not be based on an inter-governmental or government-dominated model. We also know that the U.S. congress is in some ways even more concerned about this than NTIA. So while we can have a vigorous debate about whether or not the new GAC arrangements reach the threshold of 'domination' or 'intergovernmental', we cannot ignore the fact that the transition could indeed fail if that criterion is not perceived as met. 

So if you want your argument for a compromise on 2/3 to be persuasive, you need to take seriously the contention that additional empowerment of the GAC in this way might fail to meet one of the NTIA criteria.

--MM