Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Questions / comments - the meaning of "act"

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 21 Feb 2011, at 14:30, James M. Bladel wrote:

> + Wouldn’t the proposed addition of “If approved by the Council by
> the required thresholds” to section 1 (required elements of a PDP) of
> the new Annex A, prejudge the outcome of the outstanding discussion on
> whether the Board can act on recommendations that have not been approved
> by the required GNSO voting threshold? Would it be better to leave this
> proposed addition out for now and consider this following the outcome of
> the discussion on the Board can ‘act’?
> 
> JMB:  I support Jeff's addition.  The Board can "act" on GNSO-rejected
> recommendations by initiating a PDP/Issues Report of their own.


On this one, I am still of the opinion that the Board can act means they can 
approve as consensus policy that only got a majority vote in the council by a 
supermajority vote.


> f. In any case in which the Council is not able to reach GNSO Supermajority 
> vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to act.

I contend that the word 'act'  is defined in the same as 'act; is in:

> c. In the event that the Board determines not to act in accordance with the 
> GNSO Supermajority Vote recommendation, the Board shall (i) articulate the 
> reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board 
> Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council.

And that this means that in the event the GNSO only agrees by a majority on a 
policy recommendation the Board can decide to approve it with a majority  or to 
disapprove it with a majority.

Of course I am not a lawyer and may be missing some important modality of legal 
exegesis in my interpretation, but i do think that the same word used in two 
sentences in the same paragraph would normally have the same meaning in both 
sentences.

I also would add that I do not think this is something that should be changed.  
I certainly expect the Board would take the majority only opinion into account, 
would read the explanations and the reasons against and make an informed 
decision.

Also, I do not think they need to initiate another PDP in this case.  At least 
not as a general rule, though of course I do not suggest making a rule that 
would prevent them from doing so, should they desire.

I would also note that not meeting the higher threshold does not mean rejected, 
it just means accepted at a lower threshold.


a.