[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Tue Feb 2 14:26:54 UTC 2016


On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 08:24:56AM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> That is the fear that a supermajority rule will also create a
> presumption that the Board must accept GAC advice

I am certainly prepared to believe that that is something inspiring
some people's concern, but I can think of lots of reasons people could
be concerned.  Moreover, under at least one plausible reading, that
presumption is there today: if the GAC offers consensus advice, the
Board has to do something under which the default path is arguably
"accept".  But in any case,

> The addition of the following text might help allieviate that concern:
> "This clause does not create a presumption that the Board shall accept
> such advice, or change the criteria for how it shall be evaluated."

I'm a little uncomfortable with all the ways the document keeps
growing descriptions of what it is not.  It seems to me that there are
dozens of ways to misconstrue something and to misunderstand the
intent, if that is the goal.  What I like about Becky's proposal is
that it offers a specific functional remedy to the "two bites"
problem: if the GAC wants to take bite 1, it can't have bite 2; and if
it plans to take bite 2 then it can't have already bitten.  We don't
need to rely on intentions or presumptions or other states of mind,
but instead follow the rules to govern behaviour.  I think that makes
for a clearer document.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list