Phil and Keith,

I strongly oppose this option. Why 2? Is capture somehow less of a concern if two governments work together? Why not 3 or 4 or 5 or 10?

Under the status quo, the GAC can offer consensus advice (without formal objection) to the Board. It can also offer non-consensus advice to the Board, which under GAC OP 47, are presented as the full range of views expressed. In both cases, the Board can reject the advice by majority vote although it is obligated to “try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.”

At the request of the GAC, we are considering raising the threshold for rejection of GAC advice from majority to two-thirds of the Board, which will make it much more difficult for the Board to reject GAC advice. As you noted in your earlier e-mail, this would “increase the influence of the GAC alone over the Board and other community groups.”

If the community is to accept this, it must insist that this higher threshold apply only when GAC advice is supported by consensus without formal objection. This would ensure that the GAC advice has the support of all governments, which would hopefully ensure that the advice was fully vetted and examined for potential impact on ICANN, the community, and the stability, security, resilience and openness of the Internet.

Bear in mind that in order to reverse GAC advice approved by the Board – or in other words supported by only 1/3 of the Board if this change its implemented – we would have to engage the community powers where the GAC could be a participant as well. Reaching the specific thresholds to exercise and enforce the community powers to reverse GAC advice would be very challenging.  

This insistence on consensus without formal objection would in no way prevent the GAC from sending forward non-consensus advice to the Board for consideration. But, as is fitting for advice with divided support, it would be subject to a lower rejection threshold of a majority of the Board. If the GAC advice adopted with objections has merit, I am sure the Board and the community would support it.  

Best,

Brett