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