[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

[Alan Greenberg]

Dear Kavouss,

I have a question about the following statement.

At 21/02/2016 04:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>    * In future only a full Consensus  Advice in the absence of any 
> formal objection would be considered by the Board which is quite 
> different from existing situation . This make it very probable that 
> as of the date of the transition coming in to force , NO MORE GAC 
> ADVICE WOULD  BE POSSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE Board due to the 
> fact that, no matter how much efforts be made by 154 existing GAC 
> Members, one single  Government  on any ground as it so wishes 
> could block that Advice not to become eligible for consideration by 
> the Board. This is a new working method that enshrining a clear 
> VETO to null out efforts of the rest of the GAC members in this 
> regard. This is resulted from the proposed ST18

The current GAC Principle 47 says that decisions on Advice to the 
ICANN Board will be made "the practice of adopting decisions by 
general agreement in the absence of any formal objection".

The current Proposal recommendation 11 says that the Board requires 
60% to reject GAC Advice developed  with "the practice of adopting 
decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection".

Perhaps I am missing something, but why do you say that going forward 
using this requirement which increases the Board rejection threshold 
from 50%+1 to 60% but otherwise uses the same words as are in force 
today, will make it impossible for the Board to consider GAC Advice? 
Certainly the GAC has developed Advice before and the Board has acted on it.

Alan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160221/ce0715b8/attachment.html>