And we need to preserve the community’s ability to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice, which is what my proposal is intended to do.

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006

Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz


From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 4:48 PM
To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu>
Cc: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

On 29 Jan 2016 10:11 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Isn't it so that any guidance or PDP adopted by 2/3 by the GNSO must be
> > adopted by the Board?
>
> No, it is not. The GAC has routinely interfered with and altered GNSO guidance via its "advice."
>
SO: Actually if this is true, I don't think its right to say GAC did this but rather that board made this happen. We cannot have a board that does not have option to decide independently be it on GAC advice/ALAC's or any other policy outcome of an SO. As far as I am concerned, the most neutral part of this community remains the board and they require adequate means of exercising that role.

Regards
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community