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

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 08:05:14PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
> I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
> 

I think this is a super-constructive idea because it addresses a
specific objection that some have raised (including in the public
comments) to the proposal that was in draft 3.  I'd be very interested
to hear the views of those plugged into the GNSO as to whether this
additional restriction would possibly address the concerns we hear
from there, especially taking into account the Empowered Community
under the additional restriction Becky proposes.  For the same
reasons, I'd be very keen to hear the views of those who have been
pressing hard the "2/3 view" as one that the GAC is mostly aligned
behind.

Mostly, I am strongly supportive of an approach that clearly shows
everyone compromising to hammer out a reasonably stable compromise
that allows a broad cross-section of the Internet-interested
population to support the arrangement (regardless of what the official
organs are able to state as an official constituency position).

Best regards,

A

PS: I acknowledge Malcolm's argument that the GAC could still, under
this formulation, indeed redefine "no objection" in the (IMO strained)
ways he outlined in his earlier response to me.  I think the board
would still under the formulation in draft 3 be free to reject such
advice on the grounds that it didn't really believe the "no objection"
claim.  (I also wonder about the practical dynamics in the GAC under
which such a scenario happens, but I recognise that, when one is
writing what is effectively constitutional language, one has to write
for cases one can't imagine.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com