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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Nov 18 02:45:35 UTC 2015


Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 18 Nov 2015 00:03, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
SO: GAC wants to maintain its advisory role as currently defined in the
bylaw (different level of swordsmith has been proposed) and GAC want to
have the "option" to be able to participate in exercising community powers
just like others. For the later.....

If so,
> then all we are really discussing is what minimal threshold the CCWG
> can expect.
>
SO: ....your point here would have addressed that easily (which has been
hinted a number of times, including by my humble self). The question CCWG
needed to answer is what's the minimum SO/AC that would warrant even
checking who is in support or against. I think 4 should be good enough and
indicating a clause that increase/reduce number of required support based
on those Participating(capital P participation) would be in order.

For the former, I think that's even the main issue around stress test 18
rigmarole. Considering I have given my personal view in the past about this
and since this is being discussed by a subgroup, I will leave it to them
and wish them all the best.

Regards

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151118/a07f94d1/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list