Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Follow-up from Monday's Consultation on Rec. 6

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 18 November 2010 09:44, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Evan,
> thanks for noting my typo.
>
> the reference to the comment about GAC was Milton's "If 51% of governments
> ...
> think ..."
> This seemed to link government thinking expressed via GAC reps on this
> issue.
>
>
Understood. Milton's point was something that the WG did *not* get into, as
he notes:

Whether a majority or supermajority of AC members is required was not, I
think, directly addressed by the CWG, but given the implications for freedom
of expression and our explicit opinion in Recommendations 5.1 and 5.2
regarding a supermajority of the Board, it is advisable that an AC
supermajority be required. If 51% of governments or ALAC reps think a TLD
contravenes international law and 49% don’t, it seems logical to conclude
that its status is uncertain. Therefore, a supermajority should be
required.

I understand Milton's point but would be OK with GAC or ALAC using their own
existing mechanisms -- with whatever level of majority/consensus is required
by their own rules -- to advance an objection. Processes that are suitable
enough to create direct advice to the Board should also be sufficient to
impair frivolous government or At-Large sourced objections. But even
objections coming out of the GAC or ALAC will require Quick look and (if
they pass Quick Look) expert evaluation.

- Evan