Don't break the reasonable check and balance that currently exists

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

This proposed change is a very bad idea.

It puts higher burden on the board of directors to exercise their ability
to balance out where problematic or challenging advise arrives.

There have been many circumstances over the past through years where poor
advise, advise that is obtuse to technical solution, advise which disrupts
existing (and well vetted through clear process) GNSO policy that is
sound, introduces tremendous burden on businesses or even causes undue
consequences to registrants (where benefits are not clearly defined or
demonstrated) have been born from GAC advise, and those slip through at the
current ratio.

Unfortunately, those are not mutually exclusive attributes of advise that
have come from the GAC.

I am grateful there is a GAC, and appreciate that government as one of the
many stakeholder groups have a voice, and even a more equal voice than
other stakeholders  have.

The ability of the board to balance the multi-stakeholder model, and
leverage the diversity of the board strengths, backgrounds, and experience
- this is a fundamental and hard won balance.

Assembling a majority vote to go against advise is already a high
standard. Raising this standard would result in lower frequency of matters
that get caught or thrown back where they rightly should.

This requested change breaks that balance in a harmful way, from my
personal point of view.

-Jothan
Jothan Frakes

Speaking in a personal capacity.




-- 
Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax