Hi,

I do not think that that Board can ignore any advice it gets.  Non
consensus GAC advice is like any other advice the Board gets from an AC,
something to be considered that does not invoke the specific bylaws
mechanisms.

It is also important to remember that the Board can reject any advice it
gets, including GAC consensus advice after going through the bylaws
process.  Even GAC consensus advice does not need to be accepted, though
it takes more energy in the consideration. GAC consensus advice may
command a process, but it does not command decisions or policy.

And the better NCSG and others argue for rejecting inappropriate advice,
the better chance there is that any types of advice can be overcome when
necessary.  I think that the Board can better stand up to inappropriate
advice when it has strong well founded arguments to the contrary.

Another point I have discovered, no issue is ever over. No victory is
ever sealed forever.  Every group at ICANN can remain persistent in its
goals, so those who win or lose a point will always be able to come back
around with a new argument a new approach.  It seems to be in the nature
of the beast.

avri


On 30-Jun-17 15:50, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> I agree completely with Frazaneh.  This is a) a terrible idea on the
> merits; b) a harbinger of GAC efforts to control ICANN; and c) a
> signal that the Board will not stand up to the GAC, since the GAC
> “advice” on this is not advice that the Board must consider (lacking
> consensus) but they have chosen to do so anyway instead of ignoring
> the GAC.    All in all it.really.sucks ….. and the GNSO/NCSG community
> should say so loudly, repeatedly and often.
>
>  
>
> Paul
>
>  
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>
>  
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> Of *farzaneh badii
> *Sent:* Friday, June 30, 2017 9:33 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* two letter domain names and GAC
>
>  
>
> All,
>
>  
>
>  
>
> I wrote about two-letter domain names around a year
> ago http://www.internetgovernance.org/2016/08/26/another-government-land-grab-in-the-name-space/
>
>  
>
>  It seems like some in GAC do not back off on this issue and now I
> found out that there will be a task force on this issue  according to
> GAC communique. 
>
>  
>
>     1. 2-Character Country Codes at the Second Level With respect to
>     the 2-Character Country Codes at the Second Level GAC Copenhagen
>     Communiqué Advice (para VI.4), the GAC;
>     a) welcomes and appreciates the decision made by ICANN Board
>     directing the President and CEO of ICANN or his designee(s) to
>     take necessary actions for satisfactory resolution of the concerns
>     raised in that Advice; 
>
>     and b) welcomes the announcement made by the President and CEO of
>     ICANN of his intention to create a task force to resolve the
>     concerns mentioned in the above communiqué. In this regard the GAC
>     proposes that the mandate and working methods of the above
>     mentioned Task Force be determined in consultation with GAC
>     leadership and GAC members, and other interested parties.
>
>  
>
> We have to be on this task force. There is no legitimate reason for
> governments to claim ownership over pronouns and other generic two
> letter domain names. Do I need permission from Italy to register
> it.sucks? Also I am uneasy that they created a task force which
> relates to generic names (pronouns, remember) and GNSO is not even
> mentioned. 
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Best 
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Farzaneh
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus