<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Dear Alan</div><div>With one exception that principle 47 may change and that other GAC advice than consensus with no formal objection will no longer be subject yo negotiation</div><div>That is understood from the Minority statement that I just said</div><div>Regards </div><div>Kavousd<br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 22 Feb 2016, at 01:40, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
Dear Kavouss, <br><br>
I have a question about the following statement.<br><br>
At 21/02/2016 04:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
wrote:<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">
<ol>
<li>In future only a full Consensus Advice in the absence of any
formal objection would be considered by the Board which is quite
different from existing situation . This make it very probable that as of
the date of the transition coming in to force , <b>NO</b> <b>MORE GAC
ADVICE WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE Board due to the
fact that, no matter how much efforts be made by 154 existing GAC
Members, <u>one single Government on any ground as it so
wishes could block that</u></b> Advice not to become eligible for
consideration by the Board. This is a new working method that enshrining
a clear VETO to null out efforts of the rest of the GAC members in this
regard. This is resulted from the proposed ST18</li></ol></blockquote>
<br>
The current GAC Principle 47 says that decisions on Advice to the ICANN
Board will be made "the practice of adopting decisions by general
agreement in the absence of any formal objection".<br><br>
The current Proposal recommendation 11 says that the Board requires 60%
to reject GAC Advice developed with "the practice of adopting
decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal
objection". <br><br>
Perhaps I am missing something, but why do you say that going forward
using this requirement which increases the Board rejection threshold from
50%+1 to 60% but otherwise uses the same words as are in force today,
will make it impossible for the Board to consider GAC Advice? Certainly
the GAC has developed Advice before and the Board has acted on
it.<br><br>
Alan<br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>