<p dir="ltr">The Dr thinks it's wrong for GAC to advice on a continental TLD that actually requires support of a continental government body in the first place. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The young me thinks that is just not appropriate and does not equate to GAC having more control.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 11 Nov 2015 11:30, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na">el@lisse.na</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I fail to see why we must do something wrong with one party because<br>
of something wrong is done with another.<br>
<br>
<br>
Never mind that these are quite different.<br>
<br>
The way I understand this is that GAC seems to want to be able to<br>
give advice on *ANY* issue (even gNSO, ones, to wit .AFRICA) with<br>
the Board only being able to overrule by 2/3.<br>
<br>
Whereas the gNSO does not purport to want to be able to Develop<br>
Policy interfering with GAC affairs.<br>
<br>
<br>
I do not have a problem with the Board needing 2/3 to overrule GAC<br>
advice on intrinsic GAC issues.<br>
<br>
<br>
I am quite certain that this would not only clash with the Policy<br>
Development Processes of the SOs but also quite squarely fall under<br>
the condition of governments *NOT* to get control, which the NTIA<br>
has set.<br>
<br>
<br>
el<br>
<br>
On 2015-11-11 12:01, <a href="mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu">Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu</a> wrote:<br>
> The text proposed by Brazil does not do what Avri asks in her<br>
> second indent. At least not as per current provisions and<br>
> application.<br>
><br>
> Sent from my iPad<br>
><br>
>> On 11 Nov 2015, at 06:57, "<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>"<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Avri<br>
>><br>
>> I cannot speak for the degree this would apply to other AC, but<br>
>> certainly I feel as it is stated in horizontal terms, there would<br>
>> be room for that.<br>
>><br>
>> As to your "summary" it is important to add that the 2/3<br>
>> threshold would only be applicable to "consensus" advice from the<br>
>> AC in question (in our case, the GAC).<br>
>><br>
>> I have heard some concerns that merely saying "consensus" might<br>
>> be in the future not enough in an hipothesis where the AC in<br>
>> question would arbitralily define "consensus" as 50+1.<br>
>><br>
>> I am sure that there is no hidden agenda in this regard and that<br>
>> it would be possible for us to agree on wording which would male<br>
>> clear that consensus by definition rules out such kind of<br>
>> majority voting.<br>
>><br>
>> regards<br>
>><br>
>> Jorge<br>
>><br>
>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
>><br>
>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 06:41 schrieb Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thank you for the clarification. While I realized that later in<br>
>>> the text it do include the phrase about it being an honest and<br>
>>> genuine _attempt_, that first line give a different impression<br>
>>> and is perhaps confusing - it certainly is confusing to me.<br>
>>><br>
>>> So in other words, is it correct to read the intention of the<br>
>>> proposal as:<br>
>>><br>
>>> - that the relationship between GAC advice and the Board's<br>
>>> ability to reject it would remain the same as it is now with the<br>
>>> exception of requiring a higher Board threshold to vote against<br>
>>> of 2/3 - all AC would get the same common courtesy that the GAC<br>
>>> is currently afforded.<br>
>>><br>
>>> _If_ that is the proposal, that is one I can support. I believe<br>
>>> that the Board can and should reject advice if warranted, just<br>
>>> as they can reject SO recommendations. I believe there should<br>
>>> be redress for such rejection. And I have no objection to<br>
>>> raising the Board's voting threshold in that case.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks again for the clarification,<br>
>>><br>
>>> avri<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
--<br>
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)<br>
el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: <a href="tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733" value="+264811246733">+264 81 124 6733</a> (cell)<br>
PO Box 8421 \ /<br>
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div>