<p dir="ltr">On 28 Jan 2016 8:40 p.m., "Chris Disspain" <<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">ceo@auda.org.au</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Here are the current Board comments on Recommendation 11 (GAC Advice):<br>
><br>
> 2. The Board understands that this recommendation was not intended to impose any new requirements for the Board to take decisions on GAC advice,<br>
><br>
SO: I don't know how the board read the text to mean no new requirement was recommended. I want to assume this is probably board communicating what they expect indirectly and I hope that is the case.</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
and that this issue can be addressed in the Bylaws drafting notes by indicating that the Board should not be obligated to act on all GAC advice through a vote.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: Irrespective of the new requirement, I support board's reservation stated above.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> 3. The Board supports that ACs should be required to provide rationale to accompany advice. The Board understands the CCWG recommendation to place an obligation on the Board, when taking a decision on a piece of advice, to consider whether the Board found the rationale sufficient. The Board would always be in a position to indicate if additional information is needed prior to completing consideration of any piece of advice. The Board does not consider this recommendation to impose a requirement that the Board must provide a specific determination for each piece of advice received regarding whether the Board felt the rationale was sufficient, and urges the CCWG to clarify for Bylaws drafting that the Board is not required to make a determination on whether every piece of formal advice has adequate rationale.<br>
><br>
SO: I think this makes sense as I don't see why board would need to confirm if rationale was sufficient. I believe even at the moment, noting should stops them from asking further clarification if an advice isn't as clear enough. However, I hope/wish adequate bylaw text that ensures that board gives equal attention to AC advice is put in place(by attention, may not necessarily involve requiring a vote to reject an advice).</p>
<p dir="ltr">> 4. The Board agrees with the CCWG-Accountability’s clarification that, if the Board takes action inconsistent with the Bylaws – even if that action is based upon following the advice of an AC – the Board can be subject to an IRP. To the extent that the CCWG believes that it is important to specifically identify this in the Bylaws, the text used should apply to all Advisory Committees, and not solely refer to the GAC.<br>
><br>
SO: Seem fair enough.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
><br>
> Chris<br>
><br>
><br>
><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
</p>