<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">An easy example (by analogy) of how the presumption worry is motivated can be found in our own Fundamental Bylaw proposal. We have attached a higher value to these Fundamental Bylaws and the principles they express; we want to protect them against change or repeal. We think these Bylaws are special and have "got it right" on important matters, and we want to force extra consideration and support for any change. Put another way, if you disagree with a Fundamental Bylaw, we want to make it easier to fail and more challenging to succeed if you should decide to challenge it. As such, anyone considering such a challenge would need to think twice, improve their arguments and prepare to face a steeper climb -- or they could decide that these castle walls are too high. How did we elevate and protect these Bylaws? We have made it so that even a majority (usually a winning number) will lose -- by increasing the vote threshold to change them. A change to the GAC Advice voting threshold would have the same effect.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">A more attenuated analogy can be found in the US justice system. How do we protect the presumption of innocence in a criminal case and recognize that liberty, and not merely damages are at stake? We make it much more difficult to succeed. A criminal case requires that the prosecution prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt," while in a civil case, we require only a "preponderance of the evidence." Put another way, a civil case requires a simple majority of evidence on one side of the scales, while a criminal case requires a supermajority.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Finally, I will say that after setting up and participating in a variety of voting structures over the years, it has almost become second nature to see a supermajority as a presumption that the object of that vote should be given greater deference. That is typically the intention when one puts a supermajority vote in. So going back and understanding why it would not be seen that way to others takes a little bit of doing -- but it is worthwhile, since persuading others is more challenging than convincing yourself you are right.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:17:23PM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote:<br>
> Can we agree the principle that we're only changing the voting threshold<br>
> and not trying to create a new presumption of obedience<br>
<br>
</span>I do not actually see how the presumption worry is motivated, but I<br>
don't care enough about this to argue. If it will make us go faster,<br>
I'm in favour; if it adds even one millisecond additional time to<br>
completion, I'm opposed.<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>