Mathieu,

 

This slide is incorrect where it states [no edits to Section 1 are proposed]. Several people specifically noted that the FN was objectionable and/or unnecessary.

 

Moreover, this addition makes no sense:

 

For purposes of this section, GAC “consensus” does not include reaching a decision based on majority voting whereby disagreements with or objections by a minority of GAC representatives may be overridden. It is also understood that “consensus” does not necessarily mean “unanimity” or a broad measure of agreement that would allow a GAC member or a very small minority of GAC members to block the determination of consensus.

 

If consensus does not mean majority voting, unanimity (lack of objection), or even overwhelming majority (handful of objections) then what pray tell does it mean? It is utterly useless as a frame of reference. I suggest just leaving in the original text without footnote or qualification: “In this context, each Advisory Committee has the right to determine its particular definition of consensus.”

 

In my opinion, we are getting side tracked. As I said in response to Pedro’s email, we should focus solely on how the Board should treat the advice it receives, not about how the ACs should define or arrive at their decisions. The GAC can define consensus however it wants, but the Board should only have to try in good faith to reach a compromise if that advice is supported by a full consensus, i.e. unanimity.

 

Brett

 

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Thanks again for the very constructive call yesterday. As discussed, you will find attached an updated document for your review and comments. Changes include :

-          The previous 4^th column option has been replaced with the Denmark proposal, as amended during our call

-          An additional consideration taken into account is whether the defined rules apply to all ACs

 

In addition to the call for edits on the Denmark proposal which was circulated a few hours ago by Steve, please provide your comments on the table on section 4, which attemps to map how each proposal may address differently the various requirements and considerations. We need to make sure we share the same perspective on this to avoid any misunderstanding.

 

In order to provide an updated version in time for our Wednesday call (precise time and invitation will be circulated shortly) I would appreciate your feedback by 17 nov 9 UTC (24 hours from now).

 

Best,

 

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill@afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************