[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Feb 22 05:41:35 UTC 2016
With one exception that principle 47 may change and that other GAC advice than consensus with no formal objection will no longer be subject yo negotiation
That is understood from the Minority statement that I just said
Sent from my iPhone
> On 22 Feb 2016, at 01:40, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community