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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

So, what's the purpose of defining two thresholds?  What I am I not
understanding on this?

Thanks--

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Questions / comments - the meaning of
"act"
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, February 21, 2011 10:41 am
To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>



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.