• If the board wants to implement GAC advice and the community intends to prevent that by recalling the board, the GAC does not even have a say

Ah, Roelof I see. You really have a pretty serious misconception of what this controversy is about. As Becky noted,

> No, the carve out reflects the principle that we have discussed at great

> length.  The GAC should not have the authority BOTH to force the Board to

> the negotiating table at any time over any issues and to block community

> challenge of the results of those Board/GAC negotiations.  The status of GAC

> Advice differentiates it from any other kind of advice.  I suspect that 99.9% of

> the time that challenge will involve an alleged bylaws violations, but maybe

> not.

Perhaps if you understand better you will change your mind. AS you can clearly see, the GAC has already had a _unilateral_ say because of its ability to force the board to the negotiating table. NO OTHER SO/AC has that capability. Can you explain to me (and to all others on the list) how you can say they don’t have a say?

Why are you supporting two bites at the apple (other than the fact that as a ccTLD who is not regulated by ICANN at all, it doesn’t affect you in any way?

--MM