Thanks Izumi. On 20/11/2015 12:52, Izumi Okutani wrote:
Dear all,
Thank you Mathieu for sharing the draft text. Apologies that I will not be able to join the coming ST#18 call.
These are some feedback from some within ASO in the course of discussions.
In considering options -
- We support option with no change or minimum changes. The CCWG proposal should not substantially change the GAC's role and how its advice is treated by the Board. The GAC can change its definition of consensus but this should not substantially strengthen obligations for the Board to consider the GAC advice - Clarifying ambiguity in the actual practice by putting it into the text is OK Very clear and I agree.
Matthew
With this, some expressed concerns about requiring 2/3 majority for the Board to reject GAC advice but those who expressed concerns also expressed that the text below would be OK. (Text shared by Brett)
“The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus, which consistent with GAC Operating Principle 47 is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any advice approved by the GAC, but falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. In both instances, 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.” This is still ongoing discussions and not an official ASO position. Overall, what I share here is a preference and not a must.
No specific comments about the % or votes. i.e., no strong opinion at this stage, including its needs of either.
Wish you all a fruitful meeting and I will follow up with notes.
Izumi
On 2015/11/20 19:47, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
During our last call we had discussed elaborating on the Denmark proposal. Since then, there has been significant exchange on the list, with interesting new arguments being developed.
To facilitate today’s call at 13UTC (planned for 90 minutes this time) you will find attached a document that focuses on proposed edits we have received on the Denmark proposal, as well as, on page 2 a short table summarizing the different options regarding the “staggered Board decision threshold” approaches.
We look forward to a fruitful call.
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
_______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus