Let's find a moment to clarify orally instead of flooding all others with these exchanges and I rather suspect trying their patience Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typing errors
On 11 Nov 2015, at 07:27, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Ok, I remain confused.
Are you saying that if they call their advice 'consensus advice' it can apply if they claim that status, but otherwise it doesn't?
Please forgive me for my inability to truly understand what is being proposed. Perhaps I have been supporting the notion of equal footing in multistakeholder process for too long to understand some of the nuances.
avri
On 11-Nov-15 07:16, Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu wrote: No. It applies to all future and existing ACs where that particular condition regarding their advice applies. For the moment only GAC falls into that category
Sent from my iPad
On 11 Nov 2015, at 07:14, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks you for the clarification.
So this proposal is only for GAC.
thanks
avvri
On 11-Nov-15 07:01, Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu wrote: The text proposed by Brazil does not do what Avri asks in her second indent. At least not as per current provisions and application.
Sent from my iPad
On 11 Nov 2015, at 06:57, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Hi Avri
I cannot speak for the degree this would apply to other AC, but certainly I feel as it is stated in horizontal terms, there would be room for that.
As to your "summary" it is important to add that the 2/3 threshold would only be applicable to "consensus" advice from the AC in question (in our case, the GAC).
I have heard some concerns that merely saying "consensus" might be in the future not enough in an hipothesis where the AC in question would arbitralily define "consensus" as 50+1.
I am sure that there is no hidden agenda in this regard and that it would be possible for us to agree on wording which would male clear that consensus by definition rules out such kind of majority voting.
regards
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 11.11.2015 um 06:41 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
Thank you for the clarification. While I realized that later in the text it do include the phrase about it being an honest and genuine _attempt_, that first line give a different impression and is perhaps confusing - it certainly is confusing to me.
So in other words, is it correct to read the intention of the proposal as:
- that the relationship between GAC advice and the Board's ability to reject it would remain the same as it is now with the exception of requiring a higher Board threshold to vote against of 2/3 - all AC would get the same common courtesy that the GAC is currently afforded.
_If_ that is the proposal, that is one I can support. I believe that the Board can and should reject advice if warranted, just as they can reject SO recommendations. I believe there should be redress for such rejection. And I have no objection to raising the Board's voting threshold in that case.
Thanks again for the clarification,
avri
> On 11-Nov-15 06:23, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote: > Sorry: my prior message got sent too soon... > > what I intended to remark: I think that the current wording on the "mutually agreed solution process" which is specific to the GAC would not change. > > Hence: 1) it would remain as an obligation to "try" to find such a mutually accepted solution. 2) the Board would in any case retain ultimate decision (current letter "k"). > > regards > > Jorge > > Von meinem iPhone gesendet > >> Am 11.11.2015 um 06:18 schrieb Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>: >> >> Dear Avri >> >> As far as I understand it, ther >> >> Von meinem iPhone gesendet >> >>> Am 11.11.2015 um 00:37 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 09-Nov-15 11:28, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva wrote: >>> >>> */_if not followed, requires finding mutually agreed solutions for >>> implementation of that advice_/* >>> >>> The current bylaws state: >>> >>>> The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, >>>> in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually >>>> acceptable solution. >>> I am wondering whether the the words 'try , in good faith and in a >>> timely and efficient manner, ' were accidentally dropped from the newly >>> proposed formulation. >>> >>> Form my perspective there is a world of difference between requiring a >>> genuine attempt to find a mutually acceptable solution and the >>> requirement for finding one. >>> >>> In one case if the attempt fails, the Board is still free to make a to >>> reject the advice. In the later, the Board seems bound to find a >>> mutually agreed upon solution without the abilty to reject the advice if >>> no such solution can be found. >>> >>> Can someone clarify this for me? I accept that having missed a few >>> meeting lately, my understanding may be lagging, but that is my reason >>> for returning to the proposed and existing language. >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community