[CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Mon Feb 22 13:33:19 UTC 2016

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:25:17PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> What is the real problem if we make such exception in case of Carve-Out.

The real problem is that it means there's no carve out at all.

There are three possible cases when the Board is implementing official
GAC consensus advice and people want to object:

1.a.  There is an IRP, and the IRP declares that the Board is outside
the mission.

1.b.  There is an IRP, and the IRP declares that the Board is _not_
outside the mission.

2.  There is no IRP (it's not available, or people frame the complaint in such a way that its not available).

In case 1.a, the IRP is supposed to be binding; so the Board shouldn't
be able to act anyway.  Everyone seems ok with the lower threshold
here, as well they shoud be, since if the Board decided to proceed in
the face of a binding decision against them then the Board is _ex
hypothesi_ violating a fundamental bylaw (about IRP); so the carve-out
isn't really necessary.

In the case of 1.b, the Board has proposed that the GAC's ability to
participate in the Emoowered Community be accepted.  I can't tell
whether that's acceptable to people, though late last week I thought
people were going to be ok with it.  (For whatever it's worth, I think
this is a wart, in keeping with Steve Crocker's observation about
exceptions and complicated procedures and so on.  But I could live
with it and anyway I'm not a voting member of the CCWG.)

So, the dispute is really about case 2.  The Board's proposal is that
the GAC be an eligible member of the Empowered Community in this case
too.  Many people seem to be objecting to that.  This is without doubt
the "two bites at the apple" case, because it is a case where the GAC
has decided that it wants special rules for the Board in handling the
GAC advice.  If the rest of the community disagrees with the advice,
then there is a tussle.  It is at the very least a little strange to
allow one group (in this case the GAC) a voice on both sides of the
tussle.  (Again, for whatever it's worth, I could live with either
outcome and I'm not a voting member of the CCWG.  In my view, however,
the arguments for those opposed to the Board's recommendation are a
lot stronger.  The arguments for the Board's view boil down to three:
3 SOs and ACs is too low, a smallish number of governments are
objecting, and we're running out of time so let's just accept this.
But the first seems to me to be an arithmetic consequence, the second
places outsize weight on a single minority opinion, and the third is
just as well an argument against the change.)

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list