[CCWG-ACCT] ST-18 and 2/3 Threshold Proposal

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

Even more than usual, I don't have a strong opinion about the right
outcome (except for "finished").  Still, I want to ask a question.

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:24:16PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

> Any deviation from full consensus by GAC would have substantially
> the same effect.

Is the GAC's position that it wants to be able to have some option
according to whatever the GAC decides (that is, it is setting a floor
for what the bylaws might say about how the GAC might decide), or is
it a commitment by the GAC for how it's going to decide?  Surely, GAC
members also recognise the issue Milton is worrying about.  If so,
then all we are really discussing is what minimal threshold the CCWG
can expect.

I only ask because I am not sure it would be a good thing for the CCWG
to start trying to set rules about how various groups make their
determinations.  Once we start in that direction, the decision making
in all the other ACs and SOs should properly be part of the
deliberation too; and I recall that previous drafts have suggested
that accountability inside SOs and ACs is not on the work list at
least for WS1.

Given the messages that have gone around on this topic, I'm sure I've
overlooked something that would tell me what exactly we're discussing.
But my lazy look at the archive didn't straighten me out, so an
application of clue-by-four would be appreciated.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com