At the risk of being impolitic, it seems to me that the proposed suggestion essentially turns the concerns of the rest of the community on its head. Under this formulation, the GAC gets far
more than it has under the current bylaw, and the concerns of the rest of the community are barely met, if at all. The first time the GAC provides advice using "majority consensus" (a term sadly coined in the Executive Summary), we'll know that we got nothing
for our bargain.
As Avri touches on, the new proposed paragraph significantly misstates the current obligations of the Board. In addition to the misstatement Avri cites, the paragraph attempts to codify the informal
descriptor "due deference" which is actually not what the current bylaws says. Furthermore, the idea that if the Board decides not to follow GAC advice, the Bylaw "requires finding mutually agreed solutions
for implementation of that advice" -- the very advice the Board has decided not to follow, is clearly incorrect -- the Board's only obligation is to try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. A requirement to "try" is not a requirement
to "find" and a "mutually acceptable solution" need not (and probably does not) involve implementation of the GAC advice (except in a revised fashion acceptable to the Board).
Others have commented on the "ask" for a 2/3 requirement to reject advice, and I'll only say I agree with them. This is entirely consistent with the idea that the GAC is a co-equal (if not more than
equal) policymaker with the GNSO (and ccNSO), which in turn is entirely inconsistent with the fundamental mechanics of ICANN and the "balance of power' among SO/ACs which the Executive Summary boldly says we are not changing.
I have nothing but respect for the unique and critical role that the GAC plays at ICANN, and respect for the GAC members as well, so please do not see this as disrespect for either. It is, however,
a fairly complete rejection of this particular proposal, as stated. I may revisit it to see what can be salvaged, but I've run out of steam for the night, given that this is hour 20 since I awoke for our Tuesday meeting.
Greg