Finn,

 

I’m still confused. What is the difference between a SuperSuperSuper Majority being consensus and objection by a very small minority in not being consensus?

 

In my opinion, this FN, if it goes in at all, should go into the Advisory Committee section of the bylaws dealing with the GAC.  

 

Best,

 

Brett

 

 

 

Dear colleagues,

 

I would like point out the implication of the footnote Denmark has proposed for consensus.

 

1. The footnote does not restrict the GAC's ability to change the GAC's current definition of consensus.

 

2. Should the GAC in the future change its definition of consensus in OP47 then the footnote defines the degree of consensus (within a very tight picket fence) to which the ICANN Board is obliged to seek a mutually acceptable solution with the GAC.

 

3. On the one hand, the footnote aims to ensure that the Board is not put in a position where it has to seek a mutually acceptable solution that goes against the views of a little more than "a very small Minority" in the GAC. In other words, the Board of Directors is only required to find a mutually acceptable solution when a "SuperSuperSuper Majority" (or almost all) of GAC members are behind.

 

4. On the other hand, the footnote ensures that the GAC's decision making is not captured by  "a very small Minority"  in the GAC.

 

 

N.B A 2/3 majority could not be defined as consensus - far from it.

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

Best,

 

Julia and Finn

GAC  - DK

 

 

Kind regards

Finn Petersen

Director of International ICT Relations

DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Dahlerups Pakhus
Langelinie Allé 17
DK-2100 København Ø
Telephone: +45 3529 1000
Direct: +45 3529 1013

Mobile: +45 2072 7
E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk

MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

At the IGF in Joao Pessoa several GAC members discussed a way forward with regard to Stress test 18 with the belief that finding common ground is of crucial importance and achievable. As a result, please find attached a friendly “common ground” proposal for Bylaw amendment for your kind consideration. This common ground proposal builds on the Brazilian proposal and aims at integrating the feedback and alternatives from the CCWG list discussions, including an attempt to address the concerns with regard to "consensus".

 

We kindly suggest that this common ground proposal be presented and discussed at the ST 18 call later today.

 

Best regards,

 

Finn and Julia

GAC DK

 

 

 

 

Julia Katja Wolman

DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Dahlerups Pakhus
Langelinie Allé 17
DK-2100 København Ø
Telephone: +45 3529 1000
Direct: +45 35291308
E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk

MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.