On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:25:17PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
What is the real problem if we make such exception in case of Carve-Out.
The real problem is that it means there's no carve out at all. There are three possible cases when the Board is implementing official GAC consensus advice and people want to object: 1.a. There is an IRP, and the IRP declares that the Board is outside the mission. 1.b. There is an IRP, and the IRP declares that the Board is _not_ outside the mission. 2. There is no IRP (it's not available, or people frame the complaint in such a way that its not available). In case 1.a, the IRP is supposed to be binding; so the Board shouldn't be able to act anyway. Everyone seems ok with the lower threshold here, as well they shoud be, since if the Board decided to proceed in the face of a binding decision against them then the Board is _ex hypothesi_ violating a fundamental bylaw (about IRP); so the carve-out isn't really necessary. In the case of 1.b, the Board has proposed that the GAC's ability to participate in the Emoowered Community be accepted. I can't tell whether that's acceptable to people, though late last week I thought people were going to be ok with it. (For whatever it's worth, I think this is a wart, in keeping with Steve Crocker's observation about exceptions and complicated procedures and so on. But I could live with it and anyway I'm not a voting member of the CCWG.) So, the dispute is really about case 2. The Board's proposal is that the GAC be an eligible member of the Empowered Community in this case too. Many people seem to be objecting to that. This is without doubt the "two bites at the apple" case, because it is a case where the GAC has decided that it wants special rules for the Board in handling the GAC advice. If the rest of the community disagrees with the advice, then there is a tussle. It is at the very least a little strange to allow one group (in this case the GAC) a voice on both sides of the tussle. (Again, for whatever it's worth, I could live with either outcome and I'm not a voting member of the CCWG. In my view, however, the arguments for those opposed to the Board's recommendation are a lot stronger. The arguments for the Board's view boil down to three: 3 SOs and ACs is too low, a smallish number of governments are objecting, and we're running out of time so let's just accept this. But the first seems to me to be an arithmetic consequence, the second places outsize weight on a single minority opinion, and the third is just as well an argument against the change.) Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com