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

[Greg Shatan]

At the very least, the effect of "GAC Advice" over the formal objection of
several sovereign states is unknown.  "3%" could be 4 or 5 nations,
depending on the size of the GAC.  It will certainly change the dynamic.
To some extent, I believe this makes it highly unlikely the GAC will move
in that direction...

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Hi,
> >
> > This makes sense, but isn't it up to the GAC to realize this?
> >
> > avri
> >
>
> If it's the right thing to do, then it's the right thing to do. Are you
> saying that if the GAC doesn't realize this it isn't valid?
>
> As others have noted, we are not talking about how the GAC runs its own
> procedures, we are talking about the status of GAC advice in the overall
> ICANN process, and about how that advice is treated by the board. It is the
> community as a whole, not the GAC unilaterally, that gives GAC advice its
> special status, via the ICANN bylaws. Therefore it is not just up to the
> GAC to realize this, but up to the rest of us as well.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151118/0c4d7457/attachment.html>