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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Thank you for the clarification.  While I realized that later in the
text it  do include the phrase about it being an honest and genuine
_attempt_, that first line give a different impression and is perhaps
confusing - it certainly is confusing to me.

So in other words, is it correct to read the intention of the proposal as:

- that the relationship between GAC advice and the Board's ability to
reject it would remain the same as it is now with the exception of
requiring a higher Board threshold to vote against of 2/3
- all AC would get the same common courtesy that the GAC is currently
afforded.

_If_ that is the proposal, that is one I can support.  I believe that
the Board can and should reject advice if warranted, just as they can
reject SO recommendations.  I believe there should be redress for such
rejection.  And I have no objection to raising the Board's voting
threshold in that case.

Thanks again for the clarification,

avri



On 11-Nov-15 06:23, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
> Sorry: my prior message got sent too soon...
>
> what I intended to remark: I think that the current wording on the "mutually agreed solution process" which is specific to the GAC would not change.
>
> Hence: 1) it would remain as an obligation to "try" to find such a mutually accepted solution. 2) the Board would in any case retain ultimate decision (current letter "k").
>
> regards
>
> Jorge
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
>> Am 11.11.2015 um 06:18 schrieb Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:
>>
>> Dear Avri
>>
>> As far as I understand it, ther
>>
>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>>
>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 00:37 schrieb Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09-Nov-15 11:28, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva wrote:
>>>
>>> */_if not followed, requires finding mutually agreed solutions for
>>> implementation of that advice_/*
>>>
>>> The current bylaws state:
>>>
>>>> The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try,
>>>> in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually
>>>> acceptable solution.
>>>
>>> I am wondering whether the the words 'try , in good faith and in a
>>> timely and efficient manner, ' were accidentally dropped from the newly
>>> proposed formulation.
>>>
>>> Form my perspective there is a world of difference between requiring a
>>> genuine attempt to find a mutually acceptable solution and the
>>> requirement for finding one.
>>>
>>> In one case if the attempt fails, the Board is still free to make a  to
>>> reject the advice.  In the later, the Board seems bound to find a
>>> mutually agreed upon solution without the abilty to reject the advice if
>>> no such solution can be found.
>>>
>>> Can someone clarify this for me?  I accept that having missed a few
>>> meeting lately, my understanding may be lagging, but that is my reason
>>> for returning to the proposed and existing language.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus