[CCWG-ACCT] Does the proposed change to the GAC Bylaw create a new "mandatory voting requirement" for the ICANN Board?

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Good evening:

>  	In other words, the Board loses the flexibility it currently has (and uses) to engage the GAC in that process without a formal Board vote.  
 	This was not intended and must be corrected.

Why?

More generally, this is an extraordinary debate among folk - whatever all their other merits - that have never been members of the GAC and have never been appointed to the ICANN Board. 

Should the formal structures become so constraining - as a few CCWG participants appear to desire - then all that will have been achieved will be to thrust any serious issues between the Community, the Board and the GAC out of the designated procedures and into purely informal contexts. That would inevitably result in a serious loss of transparency, which was however the primary objective in the first place. There is a word for that.

Hey, Guys, let's get real … 

CW





On 18 Dec 2015, at 17:29, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151218/f0d9752a/attachment.html>