[CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues

Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Fri Feb 5 17:03:15 UTC 2016

Dear Andrew

such a obligation to chose (only for the GAC) was never in any CCWG draft report.

It is inconsistent with the multistakeholder model and the principle of equal footing.



Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 05.02.2016 um 17:57 schrieb Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>:
> Hi,
> I preface this by noting that I'm not a member of the CCWG.
>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 04:20:11PM +0000, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>> Any Board decision with public policy implications will (inter alia) and almost always have considered a GAC advice on such an issue.
>> Hence, with your overbroad and -as we have said from the start- discriminatory carve out/exclusion, the GAC would be excluded from any community decisions precisely when public policy issues are at stake.
> In my opinion, the above characterisation appears not to acknowledging
> the GAC's agency.
> The point of the carve-out is to give the GAC a choice.  It can issue
> advice, in the special meaning of that word for the purposes of the
> board's deliberations.  In that case, the board needs a supermajority
> to take the decision not to follow the GAC advice.  By implication,
> therefore, in the absence of the supermajority the board needs to
> accept the GAC advice and implement it.  In order for the rest of the
> community to be ok with that arrangement, the rest of the community
> wants to ensure that the GAC can't also try to force re-consideration
> of the same advice in case the board does reject the advice by
> supermajority.
> The GAC has another choice, though, with respect to any decision with
> public policy implications.  The GAC could decline to issue "advice"
> with the special meaning above, and instead (say) issue a position
> that does have GAC consensus but that is not issued as formal advice
> to the board.  In that case, the 60% threshold wouldn't be invoked,
> but the GAC would retain the freedom to act within the Empowered
> Community framework.  (I think it obvious that any actual board would
> take into consideration such a "non-advice" position; I hope we won't
> have to debate probabilistic statements about future possible states
> of affairs.)
> In other words, the current "package deal" proposal actually gives the
> GAC a new option for action.  But it does so on the condition that the
> GAC work in the way other ACs will also work.  I think that's an
> entirely reasonable thing to require, and the GAC _still_ has the
> freedom to opt out of that by issuing the formal advice that causes
> the supermajority rule to apply instead.
> Best regards,
> A
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list