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

[Seun Ojedeji]

The Dr thinks it's wrong for GAC to advice on a continental TLD that
actually requires support of a continental government body in the first
place.

The young me thinks that is just not appropriate and does not equate to GAC
having more control.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 11 Nov 2015 11:30, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el at lisse.na> wrote:

> 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     ;____/
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151111/c31db2c3/attachment.html>