<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><div class="">Hi Mathieu,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">1) that the policy proposal requires a Bylaw change</div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">Acknowledged. Or, the adoption of the policy might require some by-law changes in order for implementation to be carried out. This has the same effect I think. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">2) (in the scenario described earlier) that 2/3 of the community reject the Bylaw change. In the scenario you described (4x5 votes), that means 14 votes against out of 20, while 5 votes come from the gNSO. </div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Yes. Your 2/3 example makes it easier to block the by-law change not harder. In other words all 5 GNSO votes could vote against blocking the by-law change and 1 vote from the ccNSO could also vote against blocking the by-law change but the by-law change would still be blocked. <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">Once again, it's useful (but subjective) to ask whether that's a useful safeguard or an undue interference with the policy making role of the gNSO. </div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Well, here I am prepared to express an opinion. The ccNSO policy by-law is clearly written and sets out the basis upon which ccNSO policy can be dealt with by the Board. There is a requirement for the ccNSO to involve the other relevant ICANN bodies in its policy making. The idea that the extremely narrow band of global policies for ccTLDs that may be undertaken by the ccNSO in accordance with the carefully crafted and politically balanced methodologies that have been created could, in essence, be blocked by other SOs and ACs is totally unacceptable to auDA and I suspect would be unacceptable to a number of my ccTLD colleagues.<br class=""><div class="">
<style type="text/css" class="">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb; min-height: 16.0px}
</style>
<p class="p1"><br class=""></p>
<p class="p1"><br class=""></p>
<p class="p2">Cheers,</p>
<p class="p3"><br class=""></p>
<p class="p2">Chris</p>
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 29 Jul 2015, at 19:38 , Mathieu Weill <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" class="">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
Hi Chris, All,<br class="">
<br class="">
Another very good example of scenario, so I Cc Hillary. <br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 29/07/2015 07:24, Chris Disspain a
écrit :<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:A27A3F02-A8F3-4CD7-8295-3F0102D6356E@auda.org.au" type="cite" class=""><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px;
color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" class="">However, we should also be very
clear that the community powers we are considering putting in
place will also provide the power to block policy arising from
one of the SOs especially where the policy concerned requires
there to be a by-law change. The GNSO could complete a PDP and
recommend POLICY X and the Board decide to proceed to change the
by-laws BUT all of that would be trumped if the by-law change
were blocked by 'the community'. And whether the GNSO could
‘block' the block depends entirely on the voting thresholds we
put in place. So, for example, with 20 votes and 75% required to
vote to block, the gNSO cannot, alone, block the block. </span></blockquote>
As you rightly point out Chris, two cumulative conditions are needed
for a gNSO policy proposal to get blocked with the new powers : <br class="">
1) that the policy proposal requires a Bylaw change<br class="">
2) (in the scenario described earlier) that 2/3 of the community
reject the Bylaw change. In the scenario you described (4x5 votes),
that means 14 votes against out of 20, while 5 votes come from the
gNSO. <br class="">
<br class="">
Once again, it's useful (but subjective) to ask whether that's a
useful safeguard or an undue interference with the policy making
role of the gNSO. <br class="">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></span></body></html>