I have no problem with this and believe we already have text in our report that requires it. That is, if during the implementation process, a decisional participant intended by the group is no longer to be one, the thresholds have to be revisited (and that means lowered).

I should state for the record my very clear understanding that according to our report, GAC *will* be included as a decisional participant in the bylaws.  It would only be in the case that GAC objected to being included that it would be removed, and that we would then revisit the thresholds.

cheers
Jordan

On 24 February 2016 at 02:57, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:

Chairs,

 

As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.

 

I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter.

 

Thank you,

 

Brett

 

Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM
To: nigel@channelisles.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

 

Without even bothering to register as Participant.



el

On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch
> up and pitch in, late in the game.
>
>
>
> On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Disagree.
>> There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
>
> There are indeed
>
>
>> It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one
> The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing
> with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is
> minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
>
> No gerrymandering, please.
[...]


--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 \ /
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
_______________________________________________
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




--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive 
InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz 
Skype: jordancarter