[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Feb 1 16:59:51 UTC 2016
You see the legitimate question of Dr.
There would be more questions
That is why I suggest we take the simplest approach
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Feb 2016, at 16:44, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse at gmail.com> wrote:
> can you explain in plain language how this would work for ccTLDs?
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
>> On 29 Jan 2016, at 22:05, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>> I have a proposal for discussion.
>> Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
>> I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
>> Just a thought -
>> J. Beckwith Burr
>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>> Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community