Re: RES: [soac-mapo] Another proposal for discussion...

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think that once the points of view are all expressed and the attempts to find 
a consensus decision, then yes, the Board decides.

But of course of all of us in this discussion, the GAC have a special last 
advantage in that the Board must be willing to explain and then negotiate in 
good faith with the GAC if they do not agree with the Board's decision.

So while it can be hoped that this group will arrive at a formula that solves 
the ALAC/NCUC -  GAC conundrum, while preserving the principles laid out by the 
GNSO and approved by the Board, at the end of the day, yes the Board decides 
but only after either the GAC agrees or there is an extended dialogue between 
the Board and the GAC.

a.



On 5 Sep 2010, at 15:54, Jaime Wagner - CGI wrote:

> 
> Milton,
> 
> Either I misinterpreted due to my poor English or there's a Catch 22 in your
> reasoning.
> 
> You start saying that GAC has problems finding consensus and that we need to
> move quickly.
> 
> You finish stating that we must try to come up with something "acceptable to
> all involved".
> 
> Well, GAC is in involved. So we are doomed to failure. 
> 
> What if this something is not acceptable to all? Will we still move quickly?
> If not consensus, than majority in the Board decides. That's it.
> 
> 
> Jaime Wagner
> 
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome de
> Milton L Mueller
> Enviada em: domingo, 5 de setembro de 2010 11:07
> Para: Frank March
> Cc: soac-mapo
> Assunto: RE: [soac-mapo] Another proposal for discussion...
> 
> 
> This is a very useful and clarifying description of the GAC's situation,
> Frank. 
> Although I am familiar enough with governmental and intergovernmental
> processes to already know most of what you state, I think it's good and
> important to be apprised of this in such a direct and clear way.  
> 
> In particular, this line is key:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> It may well be that trying to find a Rec6WG
>> consensus on a report by the end of next week that includes full GAC
>> support is mission impossible. That does not mean that it should not be
>> attempted, nor does it mean that the report would be less significant.
>> What it does mean is that GAC members taking part in the discussions
>> cannot guarantee that the GAC will not come back later with criticisms
>> of either a Rec6WFG or Board position on MAPO.
> 
> My sentiments exactly, and really the only realistic way to go about this.
> 
> I think the problem here comes _not_ from the inevitable difficulties that
> GAC will have finding a consensus or from the inevitable criticisms that
> might be made by individual members or groups of GAC members, but from our
> _expectations_ regarding what the existence of those criticisms mean. 
> 
> The point is, this group has to develop a proposal, quickly, and the Board
> has to act on it with a decision and implementation, quickly. It is
> inevitable under those circumstances that various people from different
> stakeholder groups will be not entirely happy with the outcome. What we must
> do is abandon the idea that any one stakeholder group, including governments
> or any one government, has some kind of veto power over the outcome. Going
> back to my exchange with Stuart Lawley, if even the GAC is not of one mind,
> or requires long and convoluted processes to determine what its members can
> support, then it's absurd for this group to base its outcomes on what it
> thinks will or will not be acceptable to "the GAC." We have to try to
> propose something that as acceptable as possible to all of us involved.
> That's the best we can do. 
> 
> --MM
> 
> 
>