To put it more bluntly, under the bylaws if a GAC statement is not consensus advice it is not advice at all. It is a statement of opinion by one stakeholder group and triggers no special obligation. 



> -----Original Message-----

> 

> 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=0x9A830097CA066

> 68

> > 4

> >

> >

> >

> > *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-

> g

> > rab-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