[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Jan 26 16:02:24 UTC 2016
Yes you are right. That is a very sebnsitive issue and the views in GAC ids
I do not know whether thay could ever reach a consensus on the text. But
that is my personal view as CCWG Participant ,
The problem is that , irrespective of the lack of consensus in the GAC,
there is also divergence of views in CCWG. One group is in favour of the
current text with slight improvement including 2/ 3 Board's Vote for
rejection of the advice, some other infavour of Simple majoarity .As Steve
Delbianco mentioned on the other day, the current text is , in my view
representing some sort of balance but if the people insist on the lowering
the threshold it makes it very difficult even for those GAC member who
almost could agree with the current text to agree to the lowering the
In addition, there are doubnt which were cast about the meabning of
"Determines" and direct reference to voting. I personally agree with both.
However, should colleagues wish a direct refernce to vote rather than "
determine" I could agree to that as well.
My problem is the extreme scupulous action / position to define what is the
meaning of " Due account " or " taking due account " this is unacceptable
I have looked to perhaps ten Convention, Charters and have noted that the
term " with due avccount " or " duly taking into account " and similar
qualified expressions which have not caused any problem to the entire
world's community .Such qzualifier, provide the implememntor some degree of
latitude and maouvers to make their judgement based on circumstances, and
the context in which they examine the case.
In international law ,there are two basic elements
1. LetterS of the Law
2. Spirit of the Law
The second one covers the circumstances in which the law has been adopted
as well as the cicumstance in which it would be applied.
i HOPE i HAVE DESCRIBED THE CASE CLEARLY
2016-01-26 16:35 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>:
> > On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:15, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> > As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on
> rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either
> support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no
> choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations,
> because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline
> however it is measured.
> I might have been tempted to disagree, to say that out of respect for the
> GAC we should allow them a bit longer: being right, and winning consensus
> support from all parts of the community is more important than this
> continual self-defeating rush.
> However, the GAC offers no assurance that they will reach consensus
> however much extra time we give them. To the contrary, they say that
> discussions continue on Recs 1, 2 & 6, but on 11 they have been unable to
> reach a consensus. That seems as final as such things ever get. It is
> therefore not a matter of time. We can only proceed on the basis that there
> is no consensus among governments on this issue.
> 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