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

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

I fail to see why we must do something wrong with one party because
of something wrong is done with another.


Never mind that these are quite different.

The way I understand this is that GAC seems to want to be able to
give advice on *ANY* issue (even gNSO, ones, to wit .AFRICA) with
the Board only being able to overrule by 2/3.

Whereas the gNSO does not purport to want to be able to Develop
Policy interfering with GAC affairs.


I do not have a problem with the Board needing 2/3 to overrule GAC
advice on intrinsic GAC issues.


I am quite certain that this would not only clash with the Policy
Development Processes of the SOs but also quite squarely fall under
the condition of governments *NOT* to get control, which the NTIA
has set.


el

On 2015-11-11 12:01, Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu wrote:
> The text proposed by Brazil does not do what Avri asks in her
> second indent.  At least not as per current provisions and
> application.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 11 Nov 2015, at 06:57, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Avri
>>
>> I cannot speak for the degree this would apply to other AC, but
>> certainly I feel as it is stated in horizontal terms, there would
>> be room for that.
>>
>> As to your "summary" it is important to add that the 2/3
>> threshold would only be applicable to "consensus" advice from the
>> AC in question (in our case, the GAC).
>>
>> I have heard some concerns that merely saying "consensus" might
>> be in the future not enough in an hipothesis where the AC in
>> question would arbitralily define "consensus" as 50+1.
>>
>> I am sure that there is no hidden agenda in this regard and that
>> it would be possible for us to agree on wording which would male
>> clear that consensus by definition rules out such kind of
>> majority voting.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>>
>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 06:41 schrieb Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>
>>> 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
[...]

-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/